As we approach the end of the year, if you currently have a grant, you're probably grateful for that grant. If you've received a recent rejection, you may feel less so. However, whatever camp you're in, giving thanks in a variety of grant development situations can be an opportunity for you to further your case for eventual funding.
When we think about the relationship-building side of the grant development process, saying thank you and following up with a Program Officer (PO) gives you a chance to put your name and your work in front of the PO again in a positive light (everyone likes a thank you). Even when you are not funded and receive feedback from reviewers, email your PO to discuss those comments, but start that email with a "thank you" for the agency taking the time to thoughtfully review your grant. And, again, after you discuss reviewer comments, follow up with another "thank you" for the PO's time.
This may seem like overkill, but did you know that there is a field and science to the follow-up and thank yous for people who give you money? In higher education and the nonprofit world, we call this stewardship. The idea behind this field is the follow-up with a donor after they've made a gift is to not only thank them, but also to begin moving them or "stewarding" them toward making a next (hopefully larger) gift.
You may think that comparing an official at a grant-making agency with an individual donor to a charity as apples and oranges. However, I think there are some donor stewardship ideas that apply to relationship-building with POs.
Donors want to know the gift was received and appreciated. Oftentimes, your PO is the one to let you know that you've been funded. So they know that you know that you're funded. But, again, don't miss the opportunity to say thank you and show your gratitude and your excitement to pursue your project. Also, it's good to bear in mind that grant making agencies and their POs do see themselves as investors in you and your project, and in that way, they want to be acknowledged and kept in the loop.
Donors want to know their money is being used for its intended purpose. POs want to know the agency's money is being used for its intended purpose. Remember those pesky reports you are required to submit annually or bi-annually? Those reports are actually a great opportunity for you to steward your PO. Write a report that demonstrates your gratitude and your excitement around what you're able to do with your grant. One of our researchers described how at a conference she attended, a PO came up to her and just said "Thank you!" He was so appreciative of her diligence to send reports on time that she stood out from her colleagues in this way.
Additionally, when you receive any press on your research or give a talk, especially on your funded research, be sure to acknowledge your funders and forward to your PO with a quick thank you. Also, be sure to acknowledge the agency in any recognition or press that you receive. Granting agencies are essential to accomplishing research in this day and age, so bear this in mind, and when there is an opportunity, give thanks!
Resources:
Stewardship - More than a Thank-You - Blog by Michael Rosen
How to Give a Meaningful Thank You - Mark Goulston
Friday, December 8, 2017
Friday, December 1, 2017
Picking the right Institute at the NIH
This week we had our final program of the semester on the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and our speaker, Dr. Janet Snell-Bergeon brought up a lot of great points, not only on the NHLBI but on selecting an institute for which to apply for funding more generally. So, naturally, I thought it would be useful to share some of these tips.
1. Remember, you don't pick.
When you submit a grant proposal to the NIH, your application goes to the Center for Scientific Review (CSR). This group of PhD-level scientists review your grant and assign it to a study section and an Institute. You may request the study section and Institute you want your proposal going to, but the CSR makes the ultimate decision.
2. Your application is not peer-reviewed by the Institute.
At NIH, the peer review process is, for the most part, centralized. All applications are sent to a study section that includes expert reviewers on the subject matter. The applications that are scored are then sent on to their assigned Institute, where the advisory council makes a recommendation for which applications should be funded.
3. Hedge your bets.
The best way to hedge your bets and get your application to the Institute that you think will be the best fit for your application is to understand well what the Institute wants to fund. Read their strategic goals and look at what they've funded recently using the RePORT tool.
4. Try matchmaker.
If you're trying to familiarize yourself with the NIH and to understand where your application has the best shot, try using their Matchmaker tool. This tool allows you to copy and paste your project abstract in the space available. It then provides you with a report of the rates projects similar to yours have been funded by different Institutes and study sections. This can give you an initial sense of where you may want to direct your proposal.
5. Get the inside scoop.
If you haven't had the opportunity to be on a study section for the NIH, it's difficult to get a sense of the inner workings in the review meetings. However, make sure that you offer to review for a study section as soon as you can. As past reviewers have said, this is a graduate education on what makes good and bad grant proposals. But before you're on study section, find someone who has been and ask them about their experiences and for any tips they might give you as a seasoned reviewer.
The NIH has a variety of articles and videos to give you a sense of how they work and make decisions. As you're trying to decide if they're a good fit for you, spend time getting to know them.
Resources:
NIH Grants Process Overview
NIH Peer Review Revealed Video
1. Remember, you don't pick.
When you submit a grant proposal to the NIH, your application goes to the Center for Scientific Review (CSR). This group of PhD-level scientists review your grant and assign it to a study section and an Institute. You may request the study section and Institute you want your proposal going to, but the CSR makes the ultimate decision.
2. Your application is not peer-reviewed by the Institute.
At NIH, the peer review process is, for the most part, centralized. All applications are sent to a study section that includes expert reviewers on the subject matter. The applications that are scored are then sent on to their assigned Institute, where the advisory council makes a recommendation for which applications should be funded.
3. Hedge your bets.
The best way to hedge your bets and get your application to the Institute that you think will be the best fit for your application is to understand well what the Institute wants to fund. Read their strategic goals and look at what they've funded recently using the RePORT tool.
4. Try matchmaker.
If you're trying to familiarize yourself with the NIH and to understand where your application has the best shot, try using their Matchmaker tool. This tool allows you to copy and paste your project abstract in the space available. It then provides you with a report of the rates projects similar to yours have been funded by different Institutes and study sections. This can give you an initial sense of where you may want to direct your proposal.
5. Get the inside scoop.
If you haven't had the opportunity to be on a study section for the NIH, it's difficult to get a sense of the inner workings in the review meetings. However, make sure that you offer to review for a study section as soon as you can. As past reviewers have said, this is a graduate education on what makes good and bad grant proposals. But before you're on study section, find someone who has been and ask them about their experiences and for any tips they might give you as a seasoned reviewer.
The NIH has a variety of articles and videos to give you a sense of how they work and make decisions. As you're trying to decide if they're a good fit for you, spend time getting to know them.
Resources:
NIH Grants Process Overview
NIH Peer Review Revealed Video
Friday, November 17, 2017
Top 5 grant-killers
As you may have guessed from today's ominous title, inspired by one of the blog resources I gave you last week, I decided I would offer my top five grant-killers. This is based on my work with PIs on our Denver and Anschutz Medical Campuses. I've heard some stories and seen some heart-breakers, so in an attempt at prevention, here you go!
5. It's shoe-horned
Researchers are wise to submit to different funding agencies, but it's certainly easier said than done. Each grant application has a unique angle and format. What the NSF wants is quite different than what the NIH wants, so your framing of the same or similar research must be dramatically different. This means that cutting and pasting a proposal intended for one into the format for the other rarely works. For instance, I've seen PIs write up "specific aims" for an NSF proposal, not realizing that NSF has a project overview that is formatted to focus on intellectual merit and broader impacts along with an overview of your project. So, instead of shoe-horning, get to know your target agencies early on as you're developing your project. That way you'll be able to pivot your research to effectively respond to multiple calls.
4. It's rushed
You've had a fund search conducted for you by ORDE, and in your search results, you see a grant program that seems like a fit for your research. The catch? The due date is in two weeks. What do you do? What...Do...You...Do? (Speed fans?) Well, I've seen many just go for it. They spend the next week of their life doing nothing but getting their proposal together (cause don't forget it takes time to go through the Office of Grants and Contracts). They get their proposal in by the deadline but there was not time to get other eyes on it or even proofread. The PI then waits for 3-6 months to find out that their proposal was triaged or rejected with a low score. What should they have done? They should have looked to see when the next deadline was and begun researching the agency and developing their project to align with the call. They should have taken time to contact a Program Officer and get feedback.
3. It's unclear
Long-time reviewers/funded researchers consistently urge their early career colleagues to write clearly and simply, to write so that an educated lay audience can follow the argument, to avoid jargon and technical-speak wherever possible. Yet many PIs do not heed this advice, in part because they are confident their reviewers will be able to interpret their prose but also because they are so steeped in their expertise that it's hard to see the forest from the trees. It's hard to break down something they understand so intimately into everyday lingo. Yet, we must remember that even if your reviewers can wade through your complicated proposal to get the gist of what you're saying, they won't enjoy the extra work you've provided by not bothering to simplify. So, take the time to have colleagues and even a layperson review your proposal and seriously consider their feedback.
2. It breaks the rules
Approximately 60% of grant proposals are rejected without review because they are either not a good fit for the agency outright or they break the rules laid out in the submission guidelines. And it's understandable, with grants being as competitive as they ever are, some agencies are looking to pare down the number of proposals that they must have reviewed, and one of the easiest ways to do this is to target those proposals where the PI didn't bother to understand what the agency funds or didn't read or follow the guidelines. Even if a proposal is written hastily without attention to detail, it takes significant time and attention. So, go the extra mile to make sure that your work isn't for naught.
1. It's submitted at the last minute
Last minute submissions I've slotted into the #1 grant killer because this results in the most heart-breaking of stories. Say you've done your homework; you've spent months honing your grant proposal for a particular agency. You've gotten feedback from a PO and artfully integrated it into your proposal. Things get busy, you get your beautiful proposal to the Office of Grants and Contracts late. They point out something that you missed and next thing you know, you're racing to finish a required piece and you're three hours out from the deadline. At one hour before the deadline, you're ready and your grant administrator is submitting, but why is everything so slow!?! The agency's site goes down under the heavy traffic. The university's server is super slow today!!! It's finally submitted and your "received receipt" reads 5:02 pm... 2 minutes after the deadline!!! Now, maybe the agency accepts it; their system was part of the problem after all, or maybe they say, sorry, try again next time. The point is do you really want to hang your months of blood, sweat, tears, and your best shot at funding on the line like that? We've heard these stories at ORDE and they are awful. So, do yourself a favor, submit your proposal a day before the deadline at least!
Unfortunately, I feel that even when PIs hear these pitfalls, many will decide they are the exception and will learn the hard way. But when you come tell us your sad story afterward, now we can say, "I told you so!" Just kidding, we would never say that, but we'll be thinking it. ;)
Resources:
Ten Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Grant - Grant Training Center
Five Pitfalls of Grant Writing - Grants.com
5. It's shoe-horned
Researchers are wise to submit to different funding agencies, but it's certainly easier said than done. Each grant application has a unique angle and format. What the NSF wants is quite different than what the NIH wants, so your framing of the same or similar research must be dramatically different. This means that cutting and pasting a proposal intended for one into the format for the other rarely works. For instance, I've seen PIs write up "specific aims" for an NSF proposal, not realizing that NSF has a project overview that is formatted to focus on intellectual merit and broader impacts along with an overview of your project. So, instead of shoe-horning, get to know your target agencies early on as you're developing your project. That way you'll be able to pivot your research to effectively respond to multiple calls.
4. It's rushed
You've had a fund search conducted for you by ORDE, and in your search results, you see a grant program that seems like a fit for your research. The catch? The due date is in two weeks. What do you do? What...Do...You...Do? (Speed fans?) Well, I've seen many just go for it. They spend the next week of their life doing nothing but getting their proposal together (cause don't forget it takes time to go through the Office of Grants and Contracts). They get their proposal in by the deadline but there was not time to get other eyes on it or even proofread. The PI then waits for 3-6 months to find out that their proposal was triaged or rejected with a low score. What should they have done? They should have looked to see when the next deadline was and begun researching the agency and developing their project to align with the call. They should have taken time to contact a Program Officer and get feedback.
3. It's unclear
Long-time reviewers/funded researchers consistently urge their early career colleagues to write clearly and simply, to write so that an educated lay audience can follow the argument, to avoid jargon and technical-speak wherever possible. Yet many PIs do not heed this advice, in part because they are confident their reviewers will be able to interpret their prose but also because they are so steeped in their expertise that it's hard to see the forest from the trees. It's hard to break down something they understand so intimately into everyday lingo. Yet, we must remember that even if your reviewers can wade through your complicated proposal to get the gist of what you're saying, they won't enjoy the extra work you've provided by not bothering to simplify. So, take the time to have colleagues and even a layperson review your proposal and seriously consider their feedback.
2. It breaks the rules
Approximately 60% of grant proposals are rejected without review because they are either not a good fit for the agency outright or they break the rules laid out in the submission guidelines. And it's understandable, with grants being as competitive as they ever are, some agencies are looking to pare down the number of proposals that they must have reviewed, and one of the easiest ways to do this is to target those proposals where the PI didn't bother to understand what the agency funds or didn't read or follow the guidelines. Even if a proposal is written hastily without attention to detail, it takes significant time and attention. So, go the extra mile to make sure that your work isn't for naught.
1. It's submitted at the last minute
Last minute submissions I've slotted into the #1 grant killer because this results in the most heart-breaking of stories. Say you've done your homework; you've spent months honing your grant proposal for a particular agency. You've gotten feedback from a PO and artfully integrated it into your proposal. Things get busy, you get your beautiful proposal to the Office of Grants and Contracts late. They point out something that you missed and next thing you know, you're racing to finish a required piece and you're three hours out from the deadline. At one hour before the deadline, you're ready and your grant administrator is submitting, but why is everything so slow!?! The agency's site goes down under the heavy traffic. The university's server is super slow today!!! It's finally submitted and your "received receipt" reads 5:02 pm... 2 minutes after the deadline!!! Now, maybe the agency accepts it; their system was part of the problem after all, or maybe they say, sorry, try again next time. The point is do you really want to hang your months of blood, sweat, tears, and your best shot at funding on the line like that? We've heard these stories at ORDE and they are awful. So, do yourself a favor, submit your proposal a day before the deadline at least!
Unfortunately, I feel that even when PIs hear these pitfalls, many will decide they are the exception and will learn the hard way. But when you come tell us your sad story afterward, now we can say, "I told you so!" Just kidding, we would never say that, but we'll be thinking it. ;)
Resources:
Ten Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Grant - Grant Training Center
Five Pitfalls of Grant Writing - Grants.com
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
The Research Development Process
Laypeople don't tend to understand what the research development process entails. Even researchers can be a little murky on the research development process, so this week I offer clarification on how we at ORDE define this important process.
I start with the following chart and offer some clarification on each stage of the process. You see that this diagram is cyclical and that's intentional. Whether you are working on a resubmission or continuing to develop your research agenda, you should be constantly working in some part of this cycle, and often in multiple parts, depending on how many research projects you have in the works.
Search literature & funding landscape: Around the time you are combing the literature to identify gaps that your research can address, you should also be getting a lay of the funding landscape. Faculty at CU Denver and the Anschutz Medical Campus can contact ORDE to have us conduct a comprehensive fund search.
Develop project & research sponsor: As you begin to develop your research idea and have identified which sponsors might be a good fit to fund your research, you should do background research on the sponsors to which you're considering applying. It's important to understand the ideology, approach, as well as preferred topics funded by the sponsor.
Develop concept paper: A concept paper is a one-two page document that gives an overview of your project and why it's important. This can be used to shop your idea around to get feedback and generate interest around your research amongst funders, collaborators, and/or mentors.
Review program announcement: This may seem obvious, but in our experience, some PIs miss this vital step and can end up with their grant rejected when they have not followed the instructions in the program announcement.
Work with Program Officers: POs serve as the liaison between a sponsor and an applicant. POs often have influence over the review process and even some funding decisions. It's a good idea to reach out to a PO to get their thoughts on your research project before you apply.
Draft grant proposal: Based on the feedback you get on your concept paper, and considering what you've learned from your sponsor research and the program announcement, you can begin to draft your grant application.
Seek feedback: Once you have a working draft of your grant, you should vet it with colleagues, mentors, and even laypeople to make sure that your case is clear and compelling and accessible by different audiences.
Revise and Resubmit: We find ourselves in a competitive grant-funding climate where getting a grant rejected is a reality for many researchers. The biggest difference between those investigators who ultimately are funded and those who don't is whether or not they keep submitting grants.
Resources:
Learn How to Develop a Grant Proposal Writing Process - Joanne Fritz
Five Scenarios that Derail the Grant Development Process - Hanover
I start with the following chart and offer some clarification on each stage of the process. You see that this diagram is cyclical and that's intentional. Whether you are working on a resubmission or continuing to develop your research agenda, you should be constantly working in some part of this cycle, and often in multiple parts, depending on how many research projects you have in the works.
Search literature & funding landscape: Around the time you are combing the literature to identify gaps that your research can address, you should also be getting a lay of the funding landscape. Faculty at CU Denver and the Anschutz Medical Campus can contact ORDE to have us conduct a comprehensive fund search.
Develop project & research sponsor: As you begin to develop your research idea and have identified which sponsors might be a good fit to fund your research, you should do background research on the sponsors to which you're considering applying. It's important to understand the ideology, approach, as well as preferred topics funded by the sponsor.
Develop concept paper: A concept paper is a one-two page document that gives an overview of your project and why it's important. This can be used to shop your idea around to get feedback and generate interest around your research amongst funders, collaborators, and/or mentors.
Review program announcement: This may seem obvious, but in our experience, some PIs miss this vital step and can end up with their grant rejected when they have not followed the instructions in the program announcement.
Work with Program Officers: POs serve as the liaison between a sponsor and an applicant. POs often have influence over the review process and even some funding decisions. It's a good idea to reach out to a PO to get their thoughts on your research project before you apply.
Draft grant proposal: Based on the feedback you get on your concept paper, and considering what you've learned from your sponsor research and the program announcement, you can begin to draft your grant application.
Seek feedback: Once you have a working draft of your grant, you should vet it with colleagues, mentors, and even laypeople to make sure that your case is clear and compelling and accessible by different audiences.
Revise and Resubmit: We find ourselves in a competitive grant-funding climate where getting a grant rejected is a reality for many researchers. The biggest difference between those investigators who ultimately are funded and those who don't is whether or not they keep submitting grants.
Resources:
Learn How to Develop a Grant Proposal Writing Process - Joanne Fritz
Five Scenarios that Derail the Grant Development Process - Hanover
Thursday, November 2, 2017
Everyone loves a good story
In preparation for an upcoming seminar, I've been reviewing the book: The Storyteller's Secret by Carmine Gallo. In his book, Gallo looks at how many renowned leaders accomplished so much in part because of their ability to tell a good story. I enjoy Gallo's books because as I read them, I'm pointed to several great talks by the likes of Steve Jobs, J.K. Rowling, and Oprah Winfrey. In addition to highlighting great storytelling examples, Gallo also breaks down what the speaker is doing to allow us to use some of these same strategies to bolster our own use of storytelling.
But before I dig into some of Gallo's suggestions, I'll back up in case you're wondering why I'm discussing storytelling on our grant development blog. Well, proposal writing is truly a form of persuasive writing, because what are you trying to do if it's not persuading your reviewers to give you money for your project? Gallo shows how people make decisions largely based on how they feel about something, rather than what they think about something. Now, this is not to say that any good storyteller can go get a research grant. Naturally, you have to have a good idea, a solid plan, and credibility to have a chance at getting a grant, but what makes a grant proposal the best is the story that's told along with the idea, plan, and credibility.
In Gallo's book, he suggests three steps to telling a good story that I believe applies to our proposals.
1. "Grab your [audience's] attention"
In grant-writing, we usually call this the hook. Right away in your grant proposal you want to highlight the problem you're solving and show how bad it is. How many lives have been lost? How many dollars wasted? How many have been socially isolated or are living a sub-standard life because of the problem you're outlining? Now, I will say here that you want to make sure to also describe your project right up front so your reviewers know what this is all about. This does diverge from more classic story-telling that allows things to unfold more slowly, but reviewers don't want a novel when reviewing dozens of proposals; they want an easy-to-read and compelling proposal.
2. "Give [your audience] an emotional experience by telling a story around the struggle"
It's true that reviewers will probably not want to read a single-patient or victim story in your grant proposal, but that just means that researchers need to work a bit harder to make their research into a story. The nice thing is that research usually has a great story if it's framed in the right way. Think of the disease or a flawed policy as the villain - show how nefarious that villain is; who's been hurt by the villain? Then you and your research project can be the hero. So frame your project and potential solution as those that are ready to save the day. Or consider framing your project as a great mystery to discover the weaknesses of your villain to ultimately destroy it.
3. "Galvanize listeners with a call to action"
You might be thinking that the call to action in a grant proposal is quite obvious. In fact, you've included a specific dollar amount and broken it down in your budget. However, this story-telling step still applies in the way that it calls on the PI to illustrate the vision of the project in such a way that reviewers and Program Officers get excited that they have a role to play in helping to fund the project. You want to present the possibilities in such a way that your readers aren't just thinking, "huh, they have a cool project," but rather, "we have got to do this now!" The former is talking about they/you, the latter is talking about we!
Storytelling in proposals may feel like a bit of a stretch for some PIs, but as Gallo reminds us, humans are wired to look for stories; it's how we engage each other and it's core to propelling us to do great things - so use the principles of storytelling all you can!
Resources
How to Win Grants with Great Storytelling - Mathilda Harris (Grant Training Center)
The Top 3 Tips for Telling Your Story So Funders Will Listen - Grantsedge
But before I dig into some of Gallo's suggestions, I'll back up in case you're wondering why I'm discussing storytelling on our grant development blog. Well, proposal writing is truly a form of persuasive writing, because what are you trying to do if it's not persuading your reviewers to give you money for your project? Gallo shows how people make decisions largely based on how they feel about something, rather than what they think about something. Now, this is not to say that any good storyteller can go get a research grant. Naturally, you have to have a good idea, a solid plan, and credibility to have a chance at getting a grant, but what makes a grant proposal the best is the story that's told along with the idea, plan, and credibility.
In Gallo's book, he suggests three steps to telling a good story that I believe applies to our proposals.
1. "Grab your [audience's] attention"
In grant-writing, we usually call this the hook. Right away in your grant proposal you want to highlight the problem you're solving and show how bad it is. How many lives have been lost? How many dollars wasted? How many have been socially isolated or are living a sub-standard life because of the problem you're outlining? Now, I will say here that you want to make sure to also describe your project right up front so your reviewers know what this is all about. This does diverge from more classic story-telling that allows things to unfold more slowly, but reviewers don't want a novel when reviewing dozens of proposals; they want an easy-to-read and compelling proposal.
2. "Give [your audience] an emotional experience by telling a story around the struggle"
It's true that reviewers will probably not want to read a single-patient or victim story in your grant proposal, but that just means that researchers need to work a bit harder to make their research into a story. The nice thing is that research usually has a great story if it's framed in the right way. Think of the disease or a flawed policy as the villain - show how nefarious that villain is; who's been hurt by the villain? Then you and your research project can be the hero. So frame your project and potential solution as those that are ready to save the day. Or consider framing your project as a great mystery to discover the weaknesses of your villain to ultimately destroy it.
3. "Galvanize listeners with a call to action"
You might be thinking that the call to action in a grant proposal is quite obvious. In fact, you've included a specific dollar amount and broken it down in your budget. However, this story-telling step still applies in the way that it calls on the PI to illustrate the vision of the project in such a way that reviewers and Program Officers get excited that they have a role to play in helping to fund the project. You want to present the possibilities in such a way that your readers aren't just thinking, "huh, they have a cool project," but rather, "we have got to do this now!" The former is talking about they/you, the latter is talking about we!
Storytelling in proposals may feel like a bit of a stretch for some PIs, but as Gallo reminds us, humans are wired to look for stories; it's how we engage each other and it's core to propelling us to do great things - so use the principles of storytelling all you can!
Resources
How to Win Grants with Great Storytelling - Mathilda Harris (Grant Training Center)
The Top 3 Tips for Telling Your Story So Funders Will Listen - Grantsedge
Friday, October 27, 2017
Grant-writing tips for zombies
I decided to try my hand at creating a Halloween themed project overview for a hypothetical grant proposal. The result is the sample below.
So, certainly, there are some fatal flaws (pun intended) in my approach and the project in general. But in addition to that, there is also room for improvement in my write-up. Below is some feedback I'd give myself.
Use the primacy/recency effect:
People tend to remember what they read first and last the best. So given that, it's important to make sure that the opening and closing of a project overview is the most important and impacting information. In my opening, I don't describe the project quickly or outline the need for this research to create urgency. I waste my readers' primacy effect on sentences that preface but don't really do anything. I also waste my closing sentences on details of my methodology instead of focusing on more memorable things like project impact or vision.
Don't use hyperbole:
You'll note that I tell my reviewers in the second paragraph that my project is "very important," and telling them that is so important that I've bolded this. This seems silly here, but it's surprising how many PIs do things like this. Firstly, it's always better to show your reviewers why your project is important rather than telling them it is. Also, use call-outs sparingly and thoughtfully. Before you bold, italicize, underline, or highlight anything, be sure that you want to draw your reader's attention to that very quickly, even before they start reading your opening sentence. Things like your research question, hypothesis, goals, or specific aims are fair game for highlighting, but once you've chosen something to highlight, stop there. Don't underline one thing, italicize another, and bold yet another. This just makes your overview confusing to your reviewer.
Use active vs. passive Voice:
First-person, active voice is the easiest to read and the clearest way to write. Yet, third-person, passive voice is used so frequently in academia and in grant proposals, perhaps because it lends an air of objectivity and professionalism to writing. In my overview, I go back and forth between all of these, which is my first mistake. If you're not told explicitly in an agency's proposal guidelines to use the third-person, then by all means, use the first-person and say I, me, and we to talk about your project.
If you are told to use the third-person in the project overview, you can still use active voice. For instance, I can rewrite the closing of my overview to be in active voice as follows:
Aim 1: develop prevention strategies to zombie transmission, Aim 2: identify and test zombie conversion techniques, and Aim 3: create a social system to rehabilitate recently returned humans from the zombie world. The project will employ a range of innovative methodologies in z-biochemistry, z-disease prevention, and z-public health.
Not only is it easier to understand when I use active voice, but you'll notice that I cut down on a whole line of text. This is significant given how little space PIs are given for their project overview.
Use visuals and white space:
I once heard a long-time NIH reviewer and funded PI say he had never seen an NIH proposal funded that didn't include a visual in the Specific Aims (the project overview for NIH proposals). When you consider the experience of reviewers, a visual that captures your project is really worth 1,000 words. Your reviewer can quickly understand what your project is about and recall it quickly when they come back to it after looking at the other proposals assigned to them to review. Going back to my sample, even though my visual is silly, it's not a bad example of a conceptual visual that captures my project.
In terms of white space, given the limited real estate you have to write your overview, it's always tempting to take away the space between paragraphs, but resist the urge! Having white space incorporated in your proposal makes it easier to read and will give your reviewers a pleasant reaction when they open your proposal to find a clean, sectioned overview with a clear, readable visual, as opposed to the dread they may experience upon opening an overview that is one block of text with no visual breaks.
When making decisions about your proposal writing, always go back to your audience. Think about what they're trying to do with your proposal - understand it quickly and fairly assess it. And think about their experience; have you conveyed your project in a clear and compelling way? Putting your audience first will always give you a competitive edge. Had I better considered my audience, I might be well on my way to saving us from the zombie apocalypse!
Resources:
Whitespace - Marc Boulton
Active Versus Passive Voice - Purdue Online Writing Lab
So, certainly, there are some fatal flaws (pun intended) in my approach and the project in general. But in addition to that, there is also room for improvement in my write-up. Below is some feedback I'd give myself.
Use the primacy/recency effect:
People tend to remember what they read first and last the best. So given that, it's important to make sure that the opening and closing of a project overview is the most important and impacting information. In my opening, I don't describe the project quickly or outline the need for this research to create urgency. I waste my readers' primacy effect on sentences that preface but don't really do anything. I also waste my closing sentences on details of my methodology instead of focusing on more memorable things like project impact or vision.
Don't use hyperbole:
You'll note that I tell my reviewers in the second paragraph that my project is "very important," and telling them that is so important that I've bolded this. This seems silly here, but it's surprising how many PIs do things like this. Firstly, it's always better to show your reviewers why your project is important rather than telling them it is. Also, use call-outs sparingly and thoughtfully. Before you bold, italicize, underline, or highlight anything, be sure that you want to draw your reader's attention to that very quickly, even before they start reading your opening sentence. Things like your research question, hypothesis, goals, or specific aims are fair game for highlighting, but once you've chosen something to highlight, stop there. Don't underline one thing, italicize another, and bold yet another. This just makes your overview confusing to your reviewer.
Use active vs. passive Voice:
First-person, active voice is the easiest to read and the clearest way to write. Yet, third-person, passive voice is used so frequently in academia and in grant proposals, perhaps because it lends an air of objectivity and professionalism to writing. In my overview, I go back and forth between all of these, which is my first mistake. If you're not told explicitly in an agency's proposal guidelines to use the third-person, then by all means, use the first-person and say I, me, and we to talk about your project.
If you are told to use the third-person in the project overview, you can still use active voice. For instance, I can rewrite the closing of my overview to be in active voice as follows:
Aim 1: develop prevention strategies to zombie transmission, Aim 2: identify and test zombie conversion techniques, and Aim 3: create a social system to rehabilitate recently returned humans from the zombie world. The project will employ a range of innovative methodologies in z-biochemistry, z-disease prevention, and z-public health.
Not only is it easier to understand when I use active voice, but you'll notice that I cut down on a whole line of text. This is significant given how little space PIs are given for their project overview.
Use visuals and white space:
I once heard a long-time NIH reviewer and funded PI say he had never seen an NIH proposal funded that didn't include a visual in the Specific Aims (the project overview for NIH proposals). When you consider the experience of reviewers, a visual that captures your project is really worth 1,000 words. Your reviewer can quickly understand what your project is about and recall it quickly when they come back to it after looking at the other proposals assigned to them to review. Going back to my sample, even though my visual is silly, it's not a bad example of a conceptual visual that captures my project.
In terms of white space, given the limited real estate you have to write your overview, it's always tempting to take away the space between paragraphs, but resist the urge! Having white space incorporated in your proposal makes it easier to read and will give your reviewers a pleasant reaction when they open your proposal to find a clean, sectioned overview with a clear, readable visual, as opposed to the dread they may experience upon opening an overview that is one block of text with no visual breaks.
When making decisions about your proposal writing, always go back to your audience. Think about what they're trying to do with your proposal - understand it quickly and fairly assess it. And think about their experience; have you conveyed your project in a clear and compelling way? Putting your audience first will always give you a competitive edge. Had I better considered my audience, I might be well on my way to saving us from the zombie apocalypse!
Resources:
Whitespace - Marc Boulton
Active Versus Passive Voice - Purdue Online Writing Lab
Friday, October 13, 2017
Advice from an NSF Program Director
CU Denver and ORDE were excited to host NSF Program Director, Antoinette WinklerPrins yesterday. Dr. WinklerPrins gave a presentation to our local researchers on how to write a competitive proposal for the NSF. Below were some of her suggestions:
Be sure your project is a fit for NSF
The NSF is interested in funding basic science. If your work is applied, that's great, but the NSF is probably not the best fit for funding. The NSF scores all proposals on two key criteria: intellectual merit and broader impacts. Intellectual merit refers to how a research project is furthering the field. Broader impacts refer to larger implications and aligned impacts, including those that educate the next generation of scientists and those that promote diversity. To ensure that there is a fit between your research and the NSF, spend time looking at their website to understand their mission, look at past funded projects, and once you have a one-pager outlining your project, share it with a Program Director to get their feedback.
Follow the NSF proposal guidelines
Dr. WinklerPrins warned PIs that many proposals are not reviewed because they do not adhere to the proposal guidelines. She indicated that these mistakes often occur within the biosketch and in collaborator requirements. She also urged folks to make sure that their proposal is free of grammatical, factual, and mathematical errors. The NSF offers a Proposal and Awards Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG), which outlines all the rules and standards you should be familiar with when submitting an NSF proposal.
Do not bury your research question
Although it's counterintuitive, the more you know about something, the harder it is to explain it to someone who knows very little. When researchers try to explain their research, they often forget to explain why it's important because it is so obvious to them. This may be the reason that oftentimes, the most important part of your proposal, your research question, ends up buried on page five. Dr. WinklerPrins explained that proposers sometimes get so caught up in giving the background on their research that they don't get to the research question and project until well into the proposal. "No, put the research question in the first paragraph of your overview," she advises.
Get internal reviewers
One of the best ways to avoid small and large errors in your proposal, and to make sure that it's as clear as possible is to have your colleagues review it. Dr. WinklePrins suggested that you ask a colleague who's closest to you and your work to review it, and then someone in your discipline who is the furthest from your immediate work. The reviewer closest to your work will pick up on little details and make suggestions for how to make your case stronger. The one furthest from your work will be able to tell you if they can follow your argument and which jargon you need to explain. Of course, in ORDE, we also suggest that you have a layperson read your proposal and give feedback. Truly the best proposals are the ones that spell out the research in the clearest and most compelling way.
Program Directors have tremendous insight into what makes a great proposal and what breaks a bad one as they review the proposals themselves and reviewer feedback, and make ultimate funding decisions. Small errors or slip-ups that seem so minor to us are glaringly obvious to Program Directors and long-time reviewers. If you're planning to submit to the NSF, we strongly suggest that you first attend an NSF conference or a Program Director presentation. In November, NSF is offering their Fall 2017 Virtual Grants Conference. This is a perfect opportunity to get to know the NSF!
Resources:
PAPPG - NSF
Preparing Proposals - NSF
Proposal Development Resources - ORDE
Be sure your project is a fit for NSF
The NSF is interested in funding basic science. If your work is applied, that's great, but the NSF is probably not the best fit for funding. The NSF scores all proposals on two key criteria: intellectual merit and broader impacts. Intellectual merit refers to how a research project is furthering the field. Broader impacts refer to larger implications and aligned impacts, including those that educate the next generation of scientists and those that promote diversity. To ensure that there is a fit between your research and the NSF, spend time looking at their website to understand their mission, look at past funded projects, and once you have a one-pager outlining your project, share it with a Program Director to get their feedback.
Follow the NSF proposal guidelines
Dr. WinklerPrins warned PIs that many proposals are not reviewed because they do not adhere to the proposal guidelines. She indicated that these mistakes often occur within the biosketch and in collaborator requirements. She also urged folks to make sure that their proposal is free of grammatical, factual, and mathematical errors. The NSF offers a Proposal and Awards Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG), which outlines all the rules and standards you should be familiar with when submitting an NSF proposal.
Do not bury your research question
Although it's counterintuitive, the more you know about something, the harder it is to explain it to someone who knows very little. When researchers try to explain their research, they often forget to explain why it's important because it is so obvious to them. This may be the reason that oftentimes, the most important part of your proposal, your research question, ends up buried on page five. Dr. WinklerPrins explained that proposers sometimes get so caught up in giving the background on their research that they don't get to the research question and project until well into the proposal. "No, put the research question in the first paragraph of your overview," she advises.
Get internal reviewers
One of the best ways to avoid small and large errors in your proposal, and to make sure that it's as clear as possible is to have your colleagues review it. Dr. WinklePrins suggested that you ask a colleague who's closest to you and your work to review it, and then someone in your discipline who is the furthest from your immediate work. The reviewer closest to your work will pick up on little details and make suggestions for how to make your case stronger. The one furthest from your work will be able to tell you if they can follow your argument and which jargon you need to explain. Of course, in ORDE, we also suggest that you have a layperson read your proposal and give feedback. Truly the best proposals are the ones that spell out the research in the clearest and most compelling way.
Program Directors have tremendous insight into what makes a great proposal and what breaks a bad one as they review the proposals themselves and reviewer feedback, and make ultimate funding decisions. Small errors or slip-ups that seem so minor to us are glaringly obvious to Program Directors and long-time reviewers. If you're planning to submit to the NSF, we strongly suggest that you first attend an NSF conference or a Program Director presentation. In November, NSF is offering their Fall 2017 Virtual Grants Conference. This is a perfect opportunity to get to know the NSF!
Resources:
PAPPG - NSF
Preparing Proposals - NSF
Proposal Development Resources - ORDE
Friday, October 6, 2017
Finding funding for your pilot project
Grant funding can feel a bit like a chicken and egg scenario. I've heard multiple PIs say that they feel like they have to have a project completed before they have enough preliminary data to apply for funding. And, there is some truth to this sentiment. Most grant programs look for substantial preliminary data to demonstrate that a project will be successful when all is said and done. Even those programs that used to be for exploratory or pilot projects now expect some preliminary data.
So, what's a researcher to do? Below are some ways that researchers garner funding to get their pilot project going.
Pilot funding:
Although many grant programs still look for pilot data in proposals, some are still genuinely looking to fund new research sans pilot/preliminary data. ORDE puts out an e-book annually that outlines external funding sources for pilot projects. Download your copy here.
Internal funding:
Oftentimes, research universities have a variety of internal funding sources that can give you just enough to get your research project off the ground to produce your much-needed preliminary data. This in turn allows you to develop a competitive grant proposal for larger funding. CU Denver's Office of Research Services offers a small grants program for CU Denver campus research faculty. Oftentimes, there is other funding available at the department level or even at the institutional level. Be sure to let your department and other internal groups know of your research funding needs in case they can support you.
Start-up/Matching
Not surprisingly, faculty members are reticent to use their start-up funding. Yet, if that is the best option for getting your research project going, consider leveraging your start-up. Find out if your department, research office, or external agencies will match your start-up contribution to your research. Not only does matching mean that you're not going to any one group for full funding, but oftentimes, groups are more willing to invest in a project if they know someone else is investing with them, even if that someone is you, yourself.
Once you get your research up and running, make sure that the data and work that you produce can be used to apply for grants to launch you into your next project. Once you're in the research funding cycle, it's easier to stay in than to fall out and be on the hunt for more pilot project funding.
Resources:
ORDE Pilot Project Funding e-book
ORS Small Grants Program
So, what's a researcher to do? Below are some ways that researchers garner funding to get their pilot project going.
Pilot funding:
Although many grant programs still look for pilot data in proposals, some are still genuinely looking to fund new research sans pilot/preliminary data. ORDE puts out an e-book annually that outlines external funding sources for pilot projects. Download your copy here.
Oftentimes, research universities have a variety of internal funding sources that can give you just enough to get your research project off the ground to produce your much-needed preliminary data. This in turn allows you to develop a competitive grant proposal for larger funding. CU Denver's Office of Research Services offers a small grants program for CU Denver campus research faculty. Oftentimes, there is other funding available at the department level or even at the institutional level. Be sure to let your department and other internal groups know of your research funding needs in case they can support you.
Start-up/Matching
Not surprisingly, faculty members are reticent to use their start-up funding. Yet, if that is the best option for getting your research project going, consider leveraging your start-up. Find out if your department, research office, or external agencies will match your start-up contribution to your research. Not only does matching mean that you're not going to any one group for full funding, but oftentimes, groups are more willing to invest in a project if they know someone else is investing with them, even if that someone is you, yourself.
Once you get your research up and running, make sure that the data and work that you produce can be used to apply for grants to launch you into your next project. Once you're in the research funding cycle, it's easier to stay in than to fall out and be on the hunt for more pilot project funding.
Resources:
ORDE Pilot Project Funding e-book
ORS Small Grants Program
Friday, September 29, 2017
Aligning your project with your sponsor
Successfully funded researchers tend to consider and include the needs and interests of funding agencies and potential sponsors in their larger research goals. To do this, the PI needs to understand the goals of the sponsor to which they are applying and tailor their research project to allow the sponsor to invest in something that aligns with their priorities, preferred approach, ideology, etc.
This is not to suggest that researchers should throw their own background and agenda out the window to chase the big dollars. This will not work even if they do it, because they will be competing against researchers who do have the background and an agenda that lines up with the granting agency. Reviewers will see through an overly opportunistic PI and always go with the PI whose project and background are a match made in heaven. So, what to do? Developing a fundable project for an agency calls for a balancing act that I try to illuminate in this blog.
Find agencies that fit
As you develop a project idea, start searching for what agencies fund the sort of work you want to do. There are many resources available to you for this. Faculty at CU Denver and Anschutz Medical Campuses are encouraged to reach out to ORDE to have a personalized fund search conducted for them/their project. Please visit our website to get more information on this service. Other ways to discover potential sponsors are to look at where your colleagues are being funded and which sponsors are funding projects similar to yours.
Also, try to think outside the box. How can your research become a fit for an agency? We've seen PIs able to form and re-form their research to appeal to diverse sponsors - NSF, NIH, and private sponsors while still staying on their research career path.
Understand the agency
To be successfully funded by diverse sponsors takes some skill at being able to reframe your work in different ways. However, that's only half of the work. You must also really understand an agency to be able to customize your work for them. Understanding an agency should happen on different levels. Of course, you want to understand the subject matter that a sponsor funds, but beyond that, you want to understand the approach the sponsor prefers (e.g., exploratory or applied), the level of risk and/or innovation the sponsor desires, and any ideologies or political motivations that might drive the sponsor. Does your agency report to congress? Or, what is the backstory on how your foundation began?
Develop your project
Once you understand your agency, it's important to meaningfully integrate their needs and priorities into your project. Agencies and grant reviewers will see through superficial project changes that are tacked on to your project to respond to their interests. So, although you certainly have goals and a path for your research, this stage of aligning calls for you to step back to see how you can integrate sponsor priorities into your work. This may come in the form of new partnerships with colleagues in other disciplines that better connect your research to the sponsor. Or, it might come in the form of re-creating the story of your work to relate it to the agency - again, meaningfully.
Work with your PO
Another important way to gain insight into a funding agency as well as to receive feedback and a partner to help you customize your grant is to work with the agency's program officer (PO). POs generally have great insight into the agency and the grant review process and are interested in having the very best grants submission from you. Generally, you want to have a sense of the project you want to propose before you reach out to a PO. Once you do, send a short email to the PO (make sure the whole message fits in the view window), briefly describe your project (3-5 sentences), and ask to schedule a short phone call with them to discuss. If they don't respond to you within a week, follow-up with a call. Refer to your email and ask to schedule a call (they may not be ready to talk right then and there). When you talk to the PO, have specific questions ready that demonstrate that you are well-versed on the agency (don't let them catch you not having read the program announcement or information readily available on the website). Take careful note of any advice and feedback from the PO and integrate it into your project and ultimately your grant proposal.
Funding agencies are looking for the best and most promising research to fund, but they have their own ideas about what makes the best and most promising research. If you write a grant proposal understanding how they determine this, you'll have a competitive edge.
Resources:
Fund Search and Resources Page - ORDE
What do grant reviewers really want anyway? - Robert Porter, PhD
Can we talk? Contacting Grant Program Officers - Robert Porter, PhD
This is not to suggest that researchers should throw their own background and agenda out the window to chase the big dollars. This will not work even if they do it, because they will be competing against researchers who do have the background and an agenda that lines up with the granting agency. Reviewers will see through an overly opportunistic PI and always go with the PI whose project and background are a match made in heaven. So, what to do? Developing a fundable project for an agency calls for a balancing act that I try to illuminate in this blog.
Find agencies that fit
As you develop a project idea, start searching for what agencies fund the sort of work you want to do. There are many resources available to you for this. Faculty at CU Denver and Anschutz Medical Campuses are encouraged to reach out to ORDE to have a personalized fund search conducted for them/their project. Please visit our website to get more information on this service. Other ways to discover potential sponsors are to look at where your colleagues are being funded and which sponsors are funding projects similar to yours.
Also, try to think outside the box. How can your research become a fit for an agency? We've seen PIs able to form and re-form their research to appeal to diverse sponsors - NSF, NIH, and private sponsors while still staying on their research career path.
Understand the agency
To be successfully funded by diverse sponsors takes some skill at being able to reframe your work in different ways. However, that's only half of the work. You must also really understand an agency to be able to customize your work for them. Understanding an agency should happen on different levels. Of course, you want to understand the subject matter that a sponsor funds, but beyond that, you want to understand the approach the sponsor prefers (e.g., exploratory or applied), the level of risk and/or innovation the sponsor desires, and any ideologies or political motivations that might drive the sponsor. Does your agency report to congress? Or, what is the backstory on how your foundation began?
Develop your project
Once you understand your agency, it's important to meaningfully integrate their needs and priorities into your project. Agencies and grant reviewers will see through superficial project changes that are tacked on to your project to respond to their interests. So, although you certainly have goals and a path for your research, this stage of aligning calls for you to step back to see how you can integrate sponsor priorities into your work. This may come in the form of new partnerships with colleagues in other disciplines that better connect your research to the sponsor. Or, it might come in the form of re-creating the story of your work to relate it to the agency - again, meaningfully.
Another important way to gain insight into a funding agency as well as to receive feedback and a partner to help you customize your grant is to work with the agency's program officer (PO). POs generally have great insight into the agency and the grant review process and are interested in having the very best grants submission from you. Generally, you want to have a sense of the project you want to propose before you reach out to a PO. Once you do, send a short email to the PO (make sure the whole message fits in the view window), briefly describe your project (3-5 sentences), and ask to schedule a short phone call with them to discuss. If they don't respond to you within a week, follow-up with a call. Refer to your email and ask to schedule a call (they may not be ready to talk right then and there). When you talk to the PO, have specific questions ready that demonstrate that you are well-versed on the agency (don't let them catch you not having read the program announcement or information readily available on the website). Take careful note of any advice and feedback from the PO and integrate it into your project and ultimately your grant proposal.
Funding agencies are looking for the best and most promising research to fund, but they have their own ideas about what makes the best and most promising research. If you write a grant proposal understanding how they determine this, you'll have a competitive edge.
Resources:
Fund Search and Resources Page - ORDE
What do grant reviewers really want anyway? - Robert Porter, PhD
Can we talk? Contacting Grant Program Officers - Robert Porter, PhD
Friday, September 22, 2017
What's in a name? Titling Your Grant Proposal
Pardon my cliché title, but since this is a blog, I just cannot help myself with some of my dubiously clever titles! However, I do think that this gives us an example of a title that makes sense for a blog, but the tone of which would not be appropriate for a grant proposal.
Here is why. As I consider my blog title(s), I first think about you, my audience. I assume that you are faculty researchers, mainly at the CU Denver and Anschutz Medical Campuses. I assume that you are busy and are looking for some strategies and tips to improve your grant development and/or honing your research projects to appeal to funders. When this title pops up in your RSS feed, I'm trying to communicate two things to you.
So, your grant and its title is for your peer reviewers. Who are they? What environment are they reading in? And, what is their goal in reading your grant application?
Who: Usually other faculty researchers, but not necessarily if you are applying to a private foundation
Environment: When they find a spare moment in the day or on the plane ride out to the review session they are trying to get through all the grants they have been assigned
Goal: Understand all the grants they have been assigned to make a decision on which to support
Now, as you see, entertainment or deeply contemplating new phraseology is not what reviewers are looking for, so we must develop titles that best facilitate the goals of our audience. Grant titles should be concise and descriptive. These two words might seem in opposition, but it really just means, every word has to count and we have to choose the title that best gives an understanding of what is most important in our grant.
In addition to always rooting yourself in your reader's needs and interests when making writing decisions, below are some quick tips for grant titling:
ORDE's Titling Tips:
Resources:
Murder Most Foul: How Not to Kill a Grant Application
Research Paper Titles in Literature, Linguistics, and Science: Dimensions of Attraction
Here is why. As I consider my blog title(s), I first think about you, my audience. I assume that you are faculty researchers, mainly at the CU Denver and Anschutz Medical Campuses. I assume that you are busy and are looking for some strategies and tips to improve your grant development and/or honing your research projects to appeal to funders. When this title pops up in your RSS feed, I'm trying to communicate two things to you.
- That this won't be a horribly boring or overly technical blog post through my initial overused Shakespearean pun.
- That this blog is about grant titling through the latter half of the title
So, your grant and its title is for your peer reviewers. Who are they? What environment are they reading in? And, what is their goal in reading your grant application?
Who: Usually other faculty researchers, but not necessarily if you are applying to a private foundation
Environment: When they find a spare moment in the day or on the plane ride out to the review session they are trying to get through all the grants they have been assigned
Goal: Understand all the grants they have been assigned to make a decision on which to support
Now, as you see, entertainment or deeply contemplating new phraseology is not what reviewers are looking for, so we must develop titles that best facilitate the goals of our audience. Grant titles should be concise and descriptive. These two words might seem in opposition, but it really just means, every word has to count and we have to choose the title that best gives an understanding of what is most important in our grant.
In addition to always rooting yourself in your reader's needs and interests when making writing decisions, below are some quick tips for grant titling:
ORDE's Titling Tips:
- Review titles of funded projects by your sponsor (warning: do not assume these titles are the best, but consider your impression of the project based on the title)
- Be original and relevant (look up the hot language used by the sponsor and see if it fits with your concept)
- Be accurate and use agency-friendly keywords
- Use results/impact-driven words instead of describing a process
- Be authoritative (Questions, although they may seem intriguing can imply yours is an exploratory, risky, or questionable project)
- Only use abbreviations that are understood by the reader (e.g., DNA)
- Use active verbs (e.g., remodeling, reconstructing, creating, etc.)
- Use plain language (remember, get the point across clearly)
- Get feedback from colleagues and your program officer
- Proofread your title along with everything else
- Use the same title in resubmittals so your reviewers know to focus on your changes
Resources:
Murder Most Foul: How Not to Kill a Grant Application
Research Paper Titles in Literature, Linguistics, and Science: Dimensions of Attraction
Friday, September 15, 2017
Academic Writing vs. Grant Writing
I recently heard a story about a very high-level scholar who was resubmitting an academic journal article for the n-teenth time, and she kept getting feedback that it was too difficult to read for their audience. As she shared her frustration in re-writing and re-writing, she said in exasperation, "I just can't write for normal people!"
Although this is an extreme illustration, it does touch on a key dilemma that academics find themselves in when trying to write a grant. Not only does grant-writing require a different style, it requires a shift in perspective, from that of an academic and scholarly expert to that of a project manager and visionary.
In his award-winning article, Why Academics Have a Hard Time Writing Good Grant Proposals, Robert Porter suggests, "Sponsors rarely spend money on intellectual exploration. They will, however, consider funding activities to accomplish goals that are important to them." (2007, p. 163) This illustrates how traditional academic goals and writing will not fit the bill when it comes to sponsor goals and writing for them.
Porter offers a chart of differences (p. 162) between academic and grant writing in his article, but chief among them are to use collaboration, brevity, and passion in your grant-writing, despite any academic tendencies to the counter.
Whereas in academic writing oftentimes researchers approach it individually and largely for their own purposes and progress. In grant writing, it is wise to look at your project as a partnership that needs to serve the needs and goals of the sponsor as well as further your research. Additionally, the grant writing process should be collaborative. You should be developing a relationship with the PO at your target sponsor's organization and incorporating their feedback into your grant.
As a recent assignment in my doctoral program reminded me, in the academic realm, page minimums seem to be the rule. It comes as a bit of a shock then when researchers, who are more used to writing dozens of pages on their research, are asked to summarize it in one page or less for a grant proposal, but this is indeed the reality of grant-writing: it must be succinct, clear, and compelling.
One key aspect that makes grant writing compelling is when the PI's passion is incorporated into it. This can again fly in the face of traditional academic writing that strives to be objective and dispassionate. Not that you want to overstate the importance or necessity of the research, but it is essential to include a contagious excitement in your grant writing, so that you grab the attention and enthusiasm of your reviewers.
Grant writing is not as alien as it may feel when you first start doing it, it's just a different goal and audience than academics are generally used to. Porter suggests that we begin by poring through a program announcement to cull the goals and priorities of the sponsor and then, if it is a good fit, adapting our research to meet the needs and priorities of the sponsor.
Resources:
Porter, R. (2007). Why Academics Have a Hard Time Writing Good Grant Proposals. The Journal of Research Administration. XXXVIII, 161-167.
Porter, R. (2011). Crafting a sales pitch for your grant proposal. Research Management Review, 18(2), 1-7.
Although this is an extreme illustration, it does touch on a key dilemma that academics find themselves in when trying to write a grant. Not only does grant-writing require a different style, it requires a shift in perspective, from that of an academic and scholarly expert to that of a project manager and visionary.
In his award-winning article, Why Academics Have a Hard Time Writing Good Grant Proposals, Robert Porter suggests, "Sponsors rarely spend money on intellectual exploration. They will, however, consider funding activities to accomplish goals that are important to them." (2007, p. 163) This illustrates how traditional academic goals and writing will not fit the bill when it comes to sponsor goals and writing for them.
Porter offers a chart of differences (p. 162) between academic and grant writing in his article, but chief among them are to use collaboration, brevity, and passion in your grant-writing, despite any academic tendencies to the counter.
Whereas in academic writing oftentimes researchers approach it individually and largely for their own purposes and progress. In grant writing, it is wise to look at your project as a partnership that needs to serve the needs and goals of the sponsor as well as further your research. Additionally, the grant writing process should be collaborative. You should be developing a relationship with the PO at your target sponsor's organization and incorporating their feedback into your grant.
As a recent assignment in my doctoral program reminded me, in the academic realm, page minimums seem to be the rule. It comes as a bit of a shock then when researchers, who are more used to writing dozens of pages on their research, are asked to summarize it in one page or less for a grant proposal, but this is indeed the reality of grant-writing: it must be succinct, clear, and compelling.
One key aspect that makes grant writing compelling is when the PI's passion is incorporated into it. This can again fly in the face of traditional academic writing that strives to be objective and dispassionate. Not that you want to overstate the importance or necessity of the research, but it is essential to include a contagious excitement in your grant writing, so that you grab the attention and enthusiasm of your reviewers.
Grant writing is not as alien as it may feel when you first start doing it, it's just a different goal and audience than academics are generally used to. Porter suggests that we begin by poring through a program announcement to cull the goals and priorities of the sponsor and then, if it is a good fit, adapting our research to meet the needs and priorities of the sponsor.
Resources:
Porter, R. (2007). Why Academics Have a Hard Time Writing Good Grant Proposals. The Journal of Research Administration. XXXVIII, 161-167.
Porter, R. (2011). Crafting a sales pitch for your grant proposal. Research Management Review, 18(2), 1-7.
Friday, September 8, 2017
Give reviewers a road map
Reviewing grant proposals this week, I realized the importance of "road maps." Too often, PIs are so immersed in their research and quick to jump into their project, they forget that their reviewers haven't been beside them as they've developed their research. From the reader's perspective then, they begin reading your proposal and they feel as if they've been dropped off in the middle of the jungle and told to figure out how to get home. So, what do they need...? a road map. Here's how you create a road map in your proposal so you don't leave your reviewer stranded and frustrated.
Start with a map
To return to my jungle metaphor, think about how reading your proposal is like dropping your reviewer into uncharted terrain; uncharted unless you chart it. Although, the first thing you want to do in your proposal is create a hook, i.e., describing the great big problem your project will address, you want to quickly show your reader what your project is about and how it's going to solve the big problem. This serves as an overview or a bird's eye view of your project. This gives your reviewer a sense of what they're going to come away with. Tell them what you'll convince them of before you try to convince them. This way they are less likely to get lost in your discussion.
Use Signposts
Now, the road map of your introduction will be helpful, but in the jungle or your research, things start to look a lot alike, a how do I tell this swamp from that swamp sort of thing. This is where signposts or headings become useful. Signal your reader that you're about to describe the cutting edge research or you're about to delve into the methodology. If your reviewer has a heading to guide them, again they'll be more likely to follow you through the section and see how the sections fit together into the larger map or proposal.
Review and reiterate important directions
If you're like me, when someone gives you directions and you follow the first two, you've forgotten the rest of them (if you're really like me, you probably didn't even make it past the first direction). Similarly, in grant proposals, you can't assume that your reader/reviewer will remember everything you've already told them. We've heard heartbreaking stories from PIs who received comments back with a rejected grant, saying they hadn't outlined this or that. The PI woefully describes how the requested information was on page eight! And, although we don't tell these frustrated PIs this at the time (better not to rub salt in the wound), it's still their fault for not reminding their reviewer about this critical information more than once.
So, when things are important in your project or related to the problem you're pursuing, say it at least twice in different areas. Now, this doesn't mean you should copy and paste. Instead, you just want to re-emphasize important points using different examples or even statistics. One successfully-funded PI described how she would give national statistics about how bad the disease she was studying was in one section and then global statistics in the next section, just to remind the reviewers about how bad the problem was.
These three tips can help keep your reviewers on top of the information you're providing them instead of making them wade through the unknown depths of your research.
Resources:
7 Strategies for Writing Successful Grant Proposals - Professor Claudia Sanchez
Grant Proposals - or Give me the money! - University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Start with a map
To return to my jungle metaphor, think about how reading your proposal is like dropping your reviewer into uncharted terrain; uncharted unless you chart it. Although, the first thing you want to do in your proposal is create a hook, i.e., describing the great big problem your project will address, you want to quickly show your reader what your project is about and how it's going to solve the big problem. This serves as an overview or a bird's eye view of your project. This gives your reviewer a sense of what they're going to come away with. Tell them what you'll convince them of before you try to convince them. This way they are less likely to get lost in your discussion.
Use Signposts
Now, the road map of your introduction will be helpful, but in the jungle or your research, things start to look a lot alike, a how do I tell this swamp from that swamp sort of thing. This is where signposts or headings become useful. Signal your reader that you're about to describe the cutting edge research or you're about to delve into the methodology. If your reviewer has a heading to guide them, again they'll be more likely to follow you through the section and see how the sections fit together into the larger map or proposal.
Review and reiterate important directions
If you're like me, when someone gives you directions and you follow the first two, you've forgotten the rest of them (if you're really like me, you probably didn't even make it past the first direction). Similarly, in grant proposals, you can't assume that your reader/reviewer will remember everything you've already told them. We've heard heartbreaking stories from PIs who received comments back with a rejected grant, saying they hadn't outlined this or that. The PI woefully describes how the requested information was on page eight! And, although we don't tell these frustrated PIs this at the time (better not to rub salt in the wound), it's still their fault for not reminding their reviewer about this critical information more than once.
So, when things are important in your project or related to the problem you're pursuing, say it at least twice in different areas. Now, this doesn't mean you should copy and paste. Instead, you just want to re-emphasize important points using different examples or even statistics. One successfully-funded PI described how she would give national statistics about how bad the disease she was studying was in one section and then global statistics in the next section, just to remind the reviewers about how bad the problem was.
These three tips can help keep your reviewers on top of the information you're providing them instead of making them wade through the unknown depths of your research.
Resources:
7 Strategies for Writing Successful Grant Proposals - Professor Claudia Sanchez
Grant Proposals - or Give me the money! - University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Friday, August 25, 2017
Know Your Agency: DARPA
Understanding an agency is essential for being able to write a grant proposal that responds to their need and is thus competitive. As you research agencies that might be a good fit for you and your research, be sure to do your research on the agency itself.
To help in this area, ORDE develops two-pager Know Your Agency Briefs that can help familiarize you with an agency to which you might apply.
Our latest featured agency is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA):
Overview
The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) was created in February, 1958, in response to Soviet Union technological achievements including the Sputnik satellite. Later renamed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), it was authorized by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and tasked with “cultivating breakthrough technologies for national security.”
Specific Interests
DARPA’s strategic priorities are four-fold: 1. Rethink complex military systems 2. Master the information explosion 3. Harness biology as technology 4. Expand the technological frontier. Innovative technologies in which DARPA has been involved include both military (e.g., precision weapons, stealth technology) and civilian (e.g., internet, voice recognition, GPS receivers for small consumer products).
Approach
DARPA invests in technologies that can make major differences in US national security, partnering with academic, corporate, and government entities – what DARPA terms their “innovation ecosystem.” All research efforts are outsourced as DARPA has no research facilities; rather, the agency provides “thought leadership, community building frameworks, technology challenges, research management, funding, and other support elements” to meet their mission. The agency refers to its “culture of innovation” and is known for “executing rapidly and effectively.” Identifying cutting-edge objectives translates to investing in risk-taking research, a concept with which this agency is very familiar and comfortable. Every DARPA funding announcement carries the admonition that the agency seeks transformational versus evolutionary or incremental results in the projects they support.
Agency Organization
Reporting to the Secretary of Defense, DARPA works independently from other defense research and development activities. DARPA’s Director and Deputy Director are responsible for setting agency-wide goals/priorities, ensuring a balanced investment portfolio, approving new programs, and reviewing ongoing ones. With about 220 employees, this is likely the only federal agency where almost half of the employees are hired with the understanding they will be part of the agency for only three to five years. These “temporary” workers are the approximately 100 Program Managers (PMs) who are charged with overseeing some 250 R&D programs at the agency. DARPA PMs are recruited from academia, industry, and government agencies, and are discipline experts. PMs define their programs, set appropriate milestones, meet with their researchers, and track progress. They report to DARPA’s Technical Office Directors and Deputies who are responsible for setting directions for their offices, hiring PMs, and overseeing program execution.
DARPA’s six Technical Offices are:
• Biological Technologies Office (BTO)
• Defense Sciences Office (DSO)
• Information Innovation Office (I2O)
• Microsystems Technology Office (MTO)
• Strategic Technology Office (STO)
• Tactical Technology Office (TTO)
To learn more and to understand DARPA's grant review process, access the Know Your Agency Brief directly or go to DARPA's Website.
To help in this area, ORDE develops two-pager Know Your Agency Briefs that can help familiarize you with an agency to which you might apply.
Our latest featured agency is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA):
Overview
The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) was created in February, 1958, in response to Soviet Union technological achievements including the Sputnik satellite. Later renamed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), it was authorized by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and tasked with “cultivating breakthrough technologies for national security.”
Specific Interests
DARPA’s strategic priorities are four-fold: 1. Rethink complex military systems 2. Master the information explosion 3. Harness biology as technology 4. Expand the technological frontier. Innovative technologies in which DARPA has been involved include both military (e.g., precision weapons, stealth technology) and civilian (e.g., internet, voice recognition, GPS receivers for small consumer products).
Approach
DARPA invests in technologies that can make major differences in US national security, partnering with academic, corporate, and government entities – what DARPA terms their “innovation ecosystem.” All research efforts are outsourced as DARPA has no research facilities; rather, the agency provides “thought leadership, community building frameworks, technology challenges, research management, funding, and other support elements” to meet their mission. The agency refers to its “culture of innovation” and is known for “executing rapidly and effectively.” Identifying cutting-edge objectives translates to investing in risk-taking research, a concept with which this agency is very familiar and comfortable. Every DARPA funding announcement carries the admonition that the agency seeks transformational versus evolutionary or incremental results in the projects they support.
Agency Organization
Reporting to the Secretary of Defense, DARPA works independently from other defense research and development activities. DARPA’s Director and Deputy Director are responsible for setting agency-wide goals/priorities, ensuring a balanced investment portfolio, approving new programs, and reviewing ongoing ones. With about 220 employees, this is likely the only federal agency where almost half of the employees are hired with the understanding they will be part of the agency for only three to five years. These “temporary” workers are the approximately 100 Program Managers (PMs) who are charged with overseeing some 250 R&D programs at the agency. DARPA PMs are recruited from academia, industry, and government agencies, and are discipline experts. PMs define their programs, set appropriate milestones, meet with their researchers, and track progress. They report to DARPA’s Technical Office Directors and Deputies who are responsible for setting directions for their offices, hiring PMs, and overseeing program execution.
DARPA’s six Technical Offices are:
• Biological Technologies Office (BTO)
• Defense Sciences Office (DSO)
• Information Innovation Office (I2O)
• Microsystems Technology Office (MTO)
• Strategic Technology Office (STO)
• Tactical Technology Office (TTO)
To learn more and to understand DARPA's grant review process, access the Know Your Agency Brief directly or go to DARPA's Website.
Friday, August 18, 2017
Early Career Investigator Grants
I'm happy to announce that ORDE has just posted our newest e-book: Research Opportunities for New Investigators. So, I thought I'd post some questions to consider for those researchers interested in early career grants...
How does the agency define new investigator?
If you're a new investigator, you're a new investigator, right? Well, maybe. Different agencies define new investigator differently. Some are looking at how many years since you received your terminal degree(s). Some are looking at how long you've been in your research position. And, some are looking at whether or not you've received major funding previously.
Is it a mentored grant?
Some new investigator programs are the same sort of research-focused programs as those that are not for new investigators. And others are considered mentored awards, where in your proposal you must address your own career development plan, and also identify a mentor who will work with you throughout the award period. The NIH Career Development or K awards are generally framed in this way. While K applicants must identify a research project in their proposal, the larger focus is on the candidate, their mentor, and their career development. On the other hand, the NSF's CAREER program is research-focused. While applicants are wise to show how their CAREER project fits in with their and their department's larger research goals, this is peripheral to the research project itself. Other agencies run the gamut.
Do your past grants affect eligibility?
At some agencies, the new investigator programs are targeted at bringing very early career investigators and their research up to speed. Thus, if you have shown that you are competitive for major funding previously, this could make you ineligible for some new investigator awards. For instance, at the NIH, if you have secured major funding as the PI, e.g., received an R01, you lose your new investigator status and would not be a good candidate for a K award. But, for the NSF CAREER program, about half of CAREER awardees have received previous awards from the NSF and it puts them in a better place to compete for the CAREER and certainly does not make them ineligible.
What are the goals of the program?
The questions above really all lead to this question. Before you decide whether or not to apply for a new investigator grant, you must first understand the goals of the agency and the new investigator program. Is the agency hoping to create new independent investigators with their program by funding career development? Or is the agency looking to promote those newer investigators who have already proven that they are independent and productive researchers? When you understand the program, you can consider if it is a good fit for you at your current stage.
Resources:
Research Funding Opportunities for New Investigators - ORDE
How does the agency define new investigator?
If you're a new investigator, you're a new investigator, right? Well, maybe. Different agencies define new investigator differently. Some are looking at how many years since you received your terminal degree(s). Some are looking at how long you've been in your research position. And, some are looking at whether or not you've received major funding previously.
Is it a mentored grant?
Some new investigator programs are the same sort of research-focused programs as those that are not for new investigators. And others are considered mentored awards, where in your proposal you must address your own career development plan, and also identify a mentor who will work with you throughout the award period. The NIH Career Development or K awards are generally framed in this way. While K applicants must identify a research project in their proposal, the larger focus is on the candidate, their mentor, and their career development. On the other hand, the NSF's CAREER program is research-focused. While applicants are wise to show how their CAREER project fits in with their and their department's larger research goals, this is peripheral to the research project itself. Other agencies run the gamut.
Do your past grants affect eligibility?
At some agencies, the new investigator programs are targeted at bringing very early career investigators and their research up to speed. Thus, if you have shown that you are competitive for major funding previously, this could make you ineligible for some new investigator awards. For instance, at the NIH, if you have secured major funding as the PI, e.g., received an R01, you lose your new investigator status and would not be a good candidate for a K award. But, for the NSF CAREER program, about half of CAREER awardees have received previous awards from the NSF and it puts them in a better place to compete for the CAREER and certainly does not make them ineligible.
What are the goals of the program?
The questions above really all lead to this question. Before you decide whether or not to apply for a new investigator grant, you must first understand the goals of the agency and the new investigator program. Is the agency hoping to create new independent investigators with their program by funding career development? Or is the agency looking to promote those newer investigators who have already proven that they are independent and productive researchers? When you understand the program, you can consider if it is a good fit for you at your current stage.
Resources:
Research Funding Opportunities for New Investigators - ORDE
Friday, August 4, 2017
Preparing for your first years as an independent researcher
As we get close to the start of another academic year and new faculty orientations are upon us, I thought I'd offer some advice for brand new and returning early career investigators based on that suggested by seasoned faculty researchers. From our vantage point in ORDE, we often see new faculty set aside their research for the first year, which then sometimes slides into continued avoidance in the second year. This is understandable, given the loads that most faculty are carrying, but it's also dangerous to set aside your research for that long. So, in order to help you to focus in on your research as soon as possible, we offer the following tips.
Do what counts:
There are so many opportunities as a new faculty member that it can get overwhelming. So, spend your time doing what really counts. Perform mini (return on investment) ROI assessments on all tasks and ask yourself, is this where my time is best spent. Is this going to get me where I need to be for tenure and to be the kind of researcher I want to be in 5-10 years?
Be ready to say no:
Along these same lines as doing what counts, researchers must get used to saying no. Inevitably, you'll be asked to be on a slew of committees. And, yes, service is necessary, but as a new tenured faculty and budding researcher you want to say no to most of these requests. Now, you can be apologetic and cordial while saying no, but say no, nonetheless. Folks will understand you're trying to protect your time and focus on your research and writing early on.
Develop a mentoring network:
Because you may feel overwhelmed, you want to have a network to support you. Identify what kind of support and guidance would be most helpful. Then, be on the lookout for people who fit that bill. And make a point to invite multiple people to be part of your mentoring network instead of looking for one person to be everything.
Meet the right people:
If you're at a new institution, figure out who the major players are. Who has money? Who has influence? Seek them out and introduce yourself. Look for opportunities to invite them to lunch. Perhaps these folks become part of your support/mentor network.
Be kind to yourself:
Most faculty researchers don't accomplish what they set out to in the first year or two. But, beating yourself up about not meeting goals that may have been unrealistic doesn't help your productivity. Take time to reflect on your goals and if they are realistic. Forgive yourself for goals not reached and move on. Certainly feeling bad about your work will not help you to be any more productive.
Lastly, always remember that your friendly Office of Research Development and Education (ORDE) and Office of Research Services are here to support you so don't hesitate to reach out!
Resources:
I survived year 1 as a tenured professor, and you can too! - Tenure, she wrote
Advice for new assistant professors - Chris Blattman
Advice for your first year on the tenure track - Karen Kelsky
Do what counts:
There are so many opportunities as a new faculty member that it can get overwhelming. So, spend your time doing what really counts. Perform mini (return on investment) ROI assessments on all tasks and ask yourself, is this where my time is best spent. Is this going to get me where I need to be for tenure and to be the kind of researcher I want to be in 5-10 years?
Be ready to say no:
Along these same lines as doing what counts, researchers must get used to saying no. Inevitably, you'll be asked to be on a slew of committees. And, yes, service is necessary, but as a new tenured faculty and budding researcher you want to say no to most of these requests. Now, you can be apologetic and cordial while saying no, but say no, nonetheless. Folks will understand you're trying to protect your time and focus on your research and writing early on.
Develop a mentoring network:
Because you may feel overwhelmed, you want to have a network to support you. Identify what kind of support and guidance would be most helpful. Then, be on the lookout for people who fit that bill. And make a point to invite multiple people to be part of your mentoring network instead of looking for one person to be everything.
Meet the right people:
If you're at a new institution, figure out who the major players are. Who has money? Who has influence? Seek them out and introduce yourself. Look for opportunities to invite them to lunch. Perhaps these folks become part of your support/mentor network.
Be kind to yourself:
Most faculty researchers don't accomplish what they set out to in the first year or two. But, beating yourself up about not meeting goals that may have been unrealistic doesn't help your productivity. Take time to reflect on your goals and if they are realistic. Forgive yourself for goals not reached and move on. Certainly feeling bad about your work will not help you to be any more productive.
Lastly, always remember that your friendly Office of Research Development and Education (ORDE) and Office of Research Services are here to support you so don't hesitate to reach out!
Resources:
I survived year 1 as a tenured professor, and you can too! - Tenure, she wrote
Advice for new assistant professors - Chris Blattman
Advice for your first year on the tenure track - Karen Kelsky
Friday, July 28, 2017
First steps in applying for a grant
Starting the application process for a new grant can be daunting. There are so many rules, requests, and criteria to wrap your head around, it can be tempting to set it all aside and get back to it a little closer to the deadline, but resist that urge! ORDE recommends that PIs spend six months developing their project and then their proposal. So, usually you do not have time to waste!
So, instead of giving in to a mild panic attack at the thought of beginning a grant proposal, consider using the following solid steps to get you started.
Create a timeline and work plan:
Once you've found the deadline and requirements for a grant application, create a timeline. Mark the deadline on your calendar and prepare to have the application finished a week ahead of time. Then work back week by week. When do you need to get a polished draft to your internal reviewers? How long will it take you to revise? When will you have each section drafted in enough time to set it aside and then come back to it with fresh eyes? Putting together this timeline and work plan can help you stay realistic about what you need to accomplish when and can help you chop up the seemingly insurmountable proposal into smaller, manageable tasks.
Read everything you can find:
When you've read the program announcement and guidelines for the proposal, go back and read them again. Then start reading everything else available. Go through the sponsor's website. Read the abstracts of past funded projects. Read the sponsor's strategic plan. Read the FAQ page. Read their "tips for success" page. Watch the old webcast they've made available to you. Then, go back and read the program announcement and guidelines again. Also, consider reaching out to past funded PIs and ask them if they're willing to share their proposal.
Create a proposal template:
Before you start to write, it's a good idea to go through the program announcement and guidelines and pull out the requirements and/or criteria in the call and to make those the sections of your project description. Oftentimes, when reading a call, you find yourself going through a series of requirements they want you to address, whether this list is a series, separated by commas or a bulleted list. The sponsor is telling you what they want you to respond to in your proposal and what they'll be looking for. So, take the hint and format your project description to respond to requests explicitly.
Secure letter writers and internal reviewers:
Usually, grant applications include requirements of letters of support or something like it. Identify what the sponsor wants in these letters, who they want them to be from, and identify your letter-writers as soon as possible. Reach out to them to make sure they're willing to write a letter. Offer to draft the letter for them that they can revise.
In addition to contacting letter writers, you also want to secure internal reviewers. Folks in your discipline or even laypeople who can give you valuable feedback on a polished draft of your proposal. ORDE suggests that you have three people review your grant, including one layperson and two people in your field. Ask these folks early if they will review your proposal and agree on a timeline for this review, i.e., when will you send them a draft and when can they get feedback back to you.
If you bear in mind these things to do as you get started applying for a grant, it can help you to get past that feeling of being overwhelmed and set you up for success right away!
Resources:
ORDE Proposal Development Timeline
On the art of writing proposals - Adam Przeworski and Frank Salomon
So, instead of giving in to a mild panic attack at the thought of beginning a grant proposal, consider using the following solid steps to get you started.
Create a timeline and work plan:
Once you've found the deadline and requirements for a grant application, create a timeline. Mark the deadline on your calendar and prepare to have the application finished a week ahead of time. Then work back week by week. When do you need to get a polished draft to your internal reviewers? How long will it take you to revise? When will you have each section drafted in enough time to set it aside and then come back to it with fresh eyes? Putting together this timeline and work plan can help you stay realistic about what you need to accomplish when and can help you chop up the seemingly insurmountable proposal into smaller, manageable tasks.
Read everything you can find:
When you've read the program announcement and guidelines for the proposal, go back and read them again. Then start reading everything else available. Go through the sponsor's website. Read the abstracts of past funded projects. Read the sponsor's strategic plan. Read the FAQ page. Read their "tips for success" page. Watch the old webcast they've made available to you. Then, go back and read the program announcement and guidelines again. Also, consider reaching out to past funded PIs and ask them if they're willing to share their proposal.
Create a proposal template:
Before you start to write, it's a good idea to go through the program announcement and guidelines and pull out the requirements and/or criteria in the call and to make those the sections of your project description. Oftentimes, when reading a call, you find yourself going through a series of requirements they want you to address, whether this list is a series, separated by commas or a bulleted list. The sponsor is telling you what they want you to respond to in your proposal and what they'll be looking for. So, take the hint and format your project description to respond to requests explicitly.
Secure letter writers and internal reviewers:
Usually, grant applications include requirements of letters of support or something like it. Identify what the sponsor wants in these letters, who they want them to be from, and identify your letter-writers as soon as possible. Reach out to them to make sure they're willing to write a letter. Offer to draft the letter for them that they can revise.
In addition to contacting letter writers, you also want to secure internal reviewers. Folks in your discipline or even laypeople who can give you valuable feedback on a polished draft of your proposal. ORDE suggests that you have three people review your grant, including one layperson and two people in your field. Ask these folks early if they will review your proposal and agree on a timeline for this review, i.e., when will you send them a draft and when can they get feedback back to you.
If you bear in mind these things to do as you get started applying for a grant, it can help you to get past that feeling of being overwhelmed and set you up for success right away!
Resources:
ORDE Proposal Development Timeline
On the art of writing proposals - Adam Przeworski and Frank Salomon
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Writing and speaking (two different skills)
Yesterday, I was talking with a colleague about a scholar we both admire, whose talks just blow people away every time. And, I found myself thinking, "Man, I really wish he wrote like he spoke!" as I remembered slogging through his last article. That made me think about the folks I know whose thinking and research don't quite translate from their oration to their writing. To be fair, it goes both ways. I once went to hear author Richard Foster speak, and was excited for what I thought would be a mind-blowing talk after reading one of his books. However, the talk was humdrum and unimpressive. I was surprisingly disappointed.
I could go on recounting instances, but the truth is that public speaking and writing are both skills that don't necessarily translate. Some folks possess both. Some possess one or the other. And, some possess neither. Although both skills are important in academia, I would suggest that writing is more important. I would say it's essential, but then I'd be ignoring the fact that so much academic writing by successful academicians is bad.
Yet, going back to my pining thought of great speakers writing like they speak, why can't they? I think that maybe they can, but they need to do a few things to make this happen. Below I suggest a few things you can do if you're great speaking/teaching doesn't seem to translate to your writing.
Disabuse yourself of academese:
As a long-time student, as many of you have been, I've found myself re-trained to meet the writing rules of professor after professor. This is an interesting process for me, because as a Technical Writer, I'm partial to my own writing rules. Yet, I play along and translate entire papers into passive, third person or delete headers because an instructor insists that they are a crutch where writers should be writing transitions (apparently having both transitions and headers isn't an option). So, it's no wonder that academic writing ends up so muddled when former students, now academics, write trying to follow the sometimes contradictory and sometimes ineffective writing rules of their teachers.
Thus, many scholars should take a hard look at their writing and work to understand what rules they're following that are unnecessarily weighing down their prose and making them incomprehensible in some cases. Once you realize what you're doing and that it's creating a barrier to clarity, start re-training yourself. Disabuse your writing of these unhelpful notions.
Pinpoint the magic in your speaking:
If you are a talented and compelling speaker, try to identify what you're doing in your talks that makes your thinking so clear and compelling. Then, try to emulate that in your writing. If you have copious notes for your talks, try using the same system to write a speech down and use that as the foundation for your next publication. Or, if you don't use a lot of notes, record your next talk and transcribe it to see if that can give you a jumping off point for your writing. I recently gave a talk that was very well received. Although it was for a lay audience, I had still incorporated citations into my PowerPoint along the way to keep it academic. After a few requests for the presentation, I realized that my talk really could be easily translated into an article outline. So watch out for opportunities in your speaking that you can seize for your writing.
Consider your audience:
Even though writing and speaking are different skills, they both require the writer or orator to understand and deliver to their audience. Thinking through or finding out what the audience expects, what they already know, what would be most useful for them, and what is the context in which they will encounter your writing/speaking, are all important questions to answer before one designs their talk or their writing.
Of course, you may find that all of these strategies lend themselves to one another. For instance, the magic in your speaking may be that you really understand your audience and their needs. But, trying any or all of these strategies may allow you to use your speaking skills to push your writing to a new level.
Resources:
10 tips on how to write less badly - Michael C. Munger
I could go on recounting instances, but the truth is that public speaking and writing are both skills that don't necessarily translate. Some folks possess both. Some possess one or the other. And, some possess neither. Although both skills are important in academia, I would suggest that writing is more important. I would say it's essential, but then I'd be ignoring the fact that so much academic writing by successful academicians is bad.
Yet, going back to my pining thought of great speakers writing like they speak, why can't they? I think that maybe they can, but they need to do a few things to make this happen. Below I suggest a few things you can do if you're great speaking/teaching doesn't seem to translate to your writing.
Disabuse yourself of academese:
As a long-time student, as many of you have been, I've found myself re-trained to meet the writing rules of professor after professor. This is an interesting process for me, because as a Technical Writer, I'm partial to my own writing rules. Yet, I play along and translate entire papers into passive, third person or delete headers because an instructor insists that they are a crutch where writers should be writing transitions (apparently having both transitions and headers isn't an option). So, it's no wonder that academic writing ends up so muddled when former students, now academics, write trying to follow the sometimes contradictory and sometimes ineffective writing rules of their teachers.
Thus, many scholars should take a hard look at their writing and work to understand what rules they're following that are unnecessarily weighing down their prose and making them incomprehensible in some cases. Once you realize what you're doing and that it's creating a barrier to clarity, start re-training yourself. Disabuse your writing of these unhelpful notions.
Pinpoint the magic in your speaking:
If you are a talented and compelling speaker, try to identify what you're doing in your talks that makes your thinking so clear and compelling. Then, try to emulate that in your writing. If you have copious notes for your talks, try using the same system to write a speech down and use that as the foundation for your next publication. Or, if you don't use a lot of notes, record your next talk and transcribe it to see if that can give you a jumping off point for your writing. I recently gave a talk that was very well received. Although it was for a lay audience, I had still incorporated citations into my PowerPoint along the way to keep it academic. After a few requests for the presentation, I realized that my talk really could be easily translated into an article outline. So watch out for opportunities in your speaking that you can seize for your writing.
Consider your audience:
Even though writing and speaking are different skills, they both require the writer or orator to understand and deliver to their audience. Thinking through or finding out what the audience expects, what they already know, what would be most useful for them, and what is the context in which they will encounter your writing/speaking, are all important questions to answer before one designs their talk or their writing.
Of course, you may find that all of these strategies lend themselves to one another. For instance, the magic in your speaking may be that you really understand your audience and their needs. But, trying any or all of these strategies may allow you to use your speaking skills to push your writing to a new level.
Resources:
10 tips on how to write less badly - Michael C. Munger
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
Formatting
Proposal formatting can feel like a nuisance. If you're like many folks, you develop a proposal using your preferred Word format. Then when you're getting close to the deadline, you start to copy and paste it into the agency's template online or reformat your original document to meet what they're asking for. It's at this point that you start to realize you hadn't noticed some of their formatting guidelines and you are confronted with some options. 1-You can shoehorn your current proposal into their format, 2-You can rework your proposal to best respond to their guidelines, or 3-You can throw out their guidelines and do it your way...
If you've read my blog before, you've probably guessed that option 2 is the "right" answer, but you may also realize that in the time crunch and pressure that often accompanies proposal development, you may be tempted to opt for 1 or 3.
Here's why you shouldn't.
Although it may seem that agencies put together formatting guidelines to make your life more complicated, they've actually done it to make their lives easier. When reviewers are going through proposal after proposal, preparing for a review meeting, they come to expect the flow of the required format. They know where to go when they want to flip back to your biosketch or your budget after reading your abstract. If you move things around on them, they will not appreciate it.
Proposal guidelines are developed to give you direction and a better understanding of what the agency wants and how they want it. We all know that funded proposals respond well to the call and the guidelines. So, if that's a given, your chances for funding are much better if you truly understand the call and guidelines from the beginning.
Although you may think that some agencies will appreciate your creativity with formatting, they won't. If they wanted creative formatting then they wouldn't have painstakingly developed their formatting guidelines.
Convinced? Great, here are some tips to help you out.
If you've read my blog before, you've probably guessed that option 2 is the "right" answer, but you may also realize that in the time crunch and pressure that often accompanies proposal development, you may be tempted to opt for 1 or 3.
Here's why you shouldn't.
Although it may seem that agencies put together formatting guidelines to make your life more complicated, they've actually done it to make their lives easier. When reviewers are going through proposal after proposal, preparing for a review meeting, they come to expect the flow of the required format. They know where to go when they want to flip back to your biosketch or your budget after reading your abstract. If you move things around on them, they will not appreciate it.
Proposal guidelines are developed to give you direction and a better understanding of what the agency wants and how they want it. We all know that funded proposals respond well to the call and the guidelines. So, if that's a given, your chances for funding are much better if you truly understand the call and guidelines from the beginning.
Although you may think that some agencies will appreciate your creativity with formatting, they won't. If they wanted creative formatting then they wouldn't have painstakingly developed their formatting guidelines.
Convinced? Great, here are some tips to help you out.
- The first thing to do is read the call for proposals and the formatting guidelines and then read them again.
- Before you start writing, create a template based on the call and the required format.
- Don't try to sneak your proposal through with a smaller font or no paragraph breaks.
- Once written, return to the guidelines to make sure your proposal meets them all.
- If you're unsure about the call or guidelines, ask. This is an opportunity to engage a Program Officer (just make sure you couldn't find the answer to your question in any of the agency's documentation or website, otherwise the PO will know you didn't do your homework).
Remember, even through formatting feels like a pain, it can actually provide you more insight into what the agency is looking to fund and what they think is important, based on required sections and space allotted to those sections. So, please, take formatting requirements seriously, because we know that funding agencies do!
Resources:
What do grant reviewers really want anyway? - Robert Porter
Thursday, June 22, 2017
Making syntax work for your writing
Continuing our summer series on Steven Pinker's The Sense of Style, I must admit I was not enthused to read the syntax chapter, replete with sentence diagrams. However, it did remind me of many of the syntax tricks I use in my own writing that I outline below. Although I won't be showing you any word trees (you're welcome), I will abbreviate some of Pinker's discussion to offer you some quick tips for maintaining good syntax.
Asking too much of your reader
One of the most common syntax faux pas is when a writer asks the reader to keep the subject of a sentence in their mind while leading them through tangential clauses before they conclude with the predicate. For example:
My best friend, Brian, whose sister's birthday was last week and wanted to go to dinner with their family, is busy on Thursday.
Here, I'm trying to say "Brian is busy Thursday," but to say that I lead my reader through a twisted and unnecessary path and ask them to bear the subject, Brian, in their mind until I get back to my original point and offer my reader a predicate, is busy on Thursday. Even though my example is silly, I encourage you to not test your readers' memories in one sentence. Find ways to write things where you're not placing the subject and predicate of your sentence far apart.
Coordination
Coordination, when it comes to syntax, refers to the aligning of tenses and plurals in a sentence. So when I say, The choir sing nicely, something sounds off and we realize that I have not coordinated my subject and my verb and it should be The choir sings nicely because choir is singular. This seems easy enough, but it's amazing how complicated it becomes when a sentence gets longer, with more clauses.
Take this NIH abstract example:
Lastly, we will assess the role that delinquency case dispositions (i.e., condition of probation) plays in the relationship between behavioral health service utilization and criminal recidivism.
In this example, plays is our verb in question. Do we see coordination in this example? The trick we use to check on coordination is to first figure out to what noun the verb is referring. When I first read this sentence, I thought it was referring to the role, in which case we're good, because the role plays is correct. But then I looked closer and decided that plays was referring to dispositions. We would never dream of saying dispositions plays because dispositions is plural.
What makes this example extra tricky is the parenthetical phrase condition of probation, which puts a singular noun, condition the closest to the verb in question, plays. Yet, using our trick of identifying which noun goes with our verb, we can then create an abbreviated sentence to check if we're using the right verb form, and in our example we're not. It should be play cause it's referring to dispositions.
Who vs. whom
I had a friend in high school who, when asked for on the phone, would reply, This is she. At the time, I thought it sounded pretentious, but of course (many) years later, when asked for Naomi on the phone, I reply with This is she, because my friend was correct. Figuring out the proper pronouns gets more difficult when we're talking about who and whom. Going back to our phone conversation, is it correct when someone says, Who's calling or what about Who are you trying to reach?
The trick to use for who and whom is to first categorize who and whom with like pronouns, as shown here:
Who: he, she, they
Whom: him, her, them
Next, we answer the question with one of the pronouns.
Who's calling? She is.
So, since she is in the same category as "who," "who" is correct here.
Who are you trying to reach? I'm trying to reach her.
Oops! Who and her are in different categories, so we need to correct our question to say, Whom are you trying to reach?
Using these syntax tricks can make your writing more readable and keep you out of trouble with the people who are always on the lookout for a grammar mistake. Below are a couple of resources. I downloaded the Grammarly App and so far it's been catching errors, although I noted that in our NIH example, it thinks that plays refers to condition. So, of course, we can never rely on these tools, but we can let them help us. The blog referenced below is a good place to go for quick and dirty grammar explanations. Happy, error-free writing to you!
Resources
Grammarly App
Grammar Girl Blog
Asking too much of your reader
One of the most common syntax faux pas is when a writer asks the reader to keep the subject of a sentence in their mind while leading them through tangential clauses before they conclude with the predicate. For example:
My best friend, Brian, whose sister's birthday was last week and wanted to go to dinner with their family, is busy on Thursday.
Here, I'm trying to say "Brian is busy Thursday," but to say that I lead my reader through a twisted and unnecessary path and ask them to bear the subject, Brian, in their mind until I get back to my original point and offer my reader a predicate, is busy on Thursday. Even though my example is silly, I encourage you to not test your readers' memories in one sentence. Find ways to write things where you're not placing the subject and predicate of your sentence far apart.
Coordination
Coordination, when it comes to syntax, refers to the aligning of tenses and plurals in a sentence. So when I say, The choir sing nicely, something sounds off and we realize that I have not coordinated my subject and my verb and it should be The choir sings nicely because choir is singular. This seems easy enough, but it's amazing how complicated it becomes when a sentence gets longer, with more clauses.
Take this NIH abstract example:
Lastly, we will assess the role that delinquency case dispositions (i.e., condition of probation) plays in the relationship between behavioral health service utilization and criminal recidivism.
In this example, plays is our verb in question. Do we see coordination in this example? The trick we use to check on coordination is to first figure out to what noun the verb is referring. When I first read this sentence, I thought it was referring to the role, in which case we're good, because the role plays is correct. But then I looked closer and decided that plays was referring to dispositions. We would never dream of saying dispositions plays because dispositions is plural.
What makes this example extra tricky is the parenthetical phrase condition of probation, which puts a singular noun, condition the closest to the verb in question, plays. Yet, using our trick of identifying which noun goes with our verb, we can then create an abbreviated sentence to check if we're using the right verb form, and in our example we're not. It should be play cause it's referring to dispositions.
Who vs. whom
I had a friend in high school who, when asked for on the phone, would reply, This is she. At the time, I thought it sounded pretentious, but of course (many) years later, when asked for Naomi on the phone, I reply with This is she, because my friend was correct. Figuring out the proper pronouns gets more difficult when we're talking about who and whom. Going back to our phone conversation, is it correct when someone says, Who's calling or what about Who are you trying to reach?
The trick to use for who and whom is to first categorize who and whom with like pronouns, as shown here:
Who: he, she, they
Whom: him, her, them
Next, we answer the question with one of the pronouns.
Who's calling? She is.
So, since she is in the same category as "who," "who" is correct here.
Who are you trying to reach? I'm trying to reach her.
Oops! Who and her are in different categories, so we need to correct our question to say, Whom are you trying to reach?
Using these syntax tricks can make your writing more readable and keep you out of trouble with the people who are always on the lookout for a grammar mistake. Below are a couple of resources. I downloaded the Grammarly App and so far it's been catching errors, although I noted that in our NIH example, it thinks that plays refers to condition. So, of course, we can never rely on these tools, but we can let them help us. The blog referenced below is a good place to go for quick and dirty grammar explanations. Happy, error-free writing to you!
Resources
Grammarly App
Grammar Girl Blog
Thursday, June 15, 2017
What's in an abstract?
This week I was working with a PI on her proposal, and found myself considering what exactly should go in a proposal abstract. This may seem a question with an obvious answer, but oftentimes a PI will write their abstract as an afterthought to their larger proposal. The trouble with shirking an abstract is that although it might be the last thing a PI writes (which makes sense), it is the first thing that reviewers see. So, even if you wrote the clearest, most compelling proposal in history, if your abstract is lackluster, the reviewers will have a bad taste in their mind when they get to the main body of your proposal, if they even get that far.
Hopefully that's enough to convince you to give your abstract some serious thought. To help you with this, I thought I'd identify some dos and don'ts (in reverse order) for your abstract based on the errors and strengths I commonly see in proposal abstracts.
Don't
Hopefully that's enough to convince you to give your abstract some serious thought. To help you with this, I thought I'd identify some dos and don'ts (in reverse order) for your abstract based on the errors and strengths I commonly see in proposal abstracts.
Don't
- Make the intro to your proposal and the abstract the exact same language. Remember, the reviewer who just read your abstract will now start reading the body of your proposal. It looks sloppy if you just do a cut and paste, even if it's using brilliant prose
- Give extraneous details/examples: remember you don't have much room. Make every word count
- Include an equation: Even if it's the key to your entire project, an equation cannot be fully explained in an abstract to justify its use
- Use jargon/excessive acronyms: Remember, even if your proposal has to be very technical, the abstract should still be understandable by the layperson
Do
- Describe the problem you're trying to address and how bad it is
- Show how your project will help solve the problem
- Give a brief summary of your project and your goals
- End with the vision or broader impacts of your project
- Use the first and last sentences of your abstract to drive home the importance of your project
I first learned to write an abstract in my freshmen biology lab. I remember our TA telling us that lab reports were not mystery novels, and that we needed to lay everything that was important out in the abstract, including our results. Don't treat results like the surprise ending to a novel; tell your reader the conclusion right at the start. This was good advice that I still remember today, and I share it with you to encourage you to put all you have into your abstract, so your reviewer is excited to read the rest of your proposal!
Resources
How to write an abstract - wikihow
Crafting a sales pitch for your grant proposal - Robert Porter
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
Trading the esoteric for the understandable
Continuing our summer series on Steven Pinker's book The Sense of Style, this week we look at what Pinker calls, "The curse of knowledge." Pinker explains that writers who are experts in their subject-matter often write about it poorly simply because they cannot remember what it was like before they were experts or before they understood their subject-matter. He argues that writers rarely muddy their writing with jargon intentionally, but because they are describing it through the concepts that they know like the back of their hands, and yet their readers do not understand.
Pinker then breaks down how we as writers can start recognizing the esoteric nature of our writing and revise to translate these concepts to our readers.
Chunking
As you become an expert, as a way of remembering and using the barrage of information of which you control, you must create umbrella concepts to package the smaller ideas and concepts that you've mastered. This "chunking" of concepts is useful to the researcher in this way. The problem comes when the researcher sits down to write a grant application and uses all of the high-level concepts she has been thinking about without any explanation of those same concepts for the reviewers.
Functional fixity
In addition to chunking, Pinker suggests that experts also develop a fixation on the function of objects, which they themselves are focused on, instead of offering descriptors of the objects themselves. So, for instance, Pinker uses the example below:
Focus on function: "Participants were tested under conditions of good to excellent acoustic isolation" (p. 73).
Focus on description: "We tested the students in a quiet room" (p. 73).
We realize that in the first example, the researcher was focused on what makes the conditions optimal (and in what way they were optimal). But in the second example, it's much clearer to the lay audience what she's talking about, because she described the room instead of focusing on its function.
Technical terminology
Now certainly chunking and functional fixity can lend itself to a researcher using technical terminology or jargon in their grant proposals. But, sometimes researchers are just using a term that could be easily substituted. Pinker offers a relevant example, when he suggests that researchers instead of saying "murine model" say "with rats and mice."
To combat these, Pinker suggests that being aware of the gap between our knowledge, as experts, and our readers, as lesser-experts (in our area) is key to being able to write for our audience. But, he also suggests that after we complete a draft that we put it away for a while and then re-read and revise the draft with a fresh perspective. Additionally, have a representative of your audience review a draft and give you feedback on what is confusing and what might be more helpful.
There's really no way around the gap of knowledge that occurs between an expert and a novice, but experts can still write well for novices by acknowledging the gap and bridging it through writing.
Resources:
Write for your Reader: A Plain Language Handbook - NWT Literacy Council
Pinker then breaks down how we as writers can start recognizing the esoteric nature of our writing and revise to translate these concepts to our readers.
Chunking
As you become an expert, as a way of remembering and using the barrage of information of which you control, you must create umbrella concepts to package the smaller ideas and concepts that you've mastered. This "chunking" of concepts is useful to the researcher in this way. The problem comes when the researcher sits down to write a grant application and uses all of the high-level concepts she has been thinking about without any explanation of those same concepts for the reviewers.
Functional fixity
In addition to chunking, Pinker suggests that experts also develop a fixation on the function of objects, which they themselves are focused on, instead of offering descriptors of the objects themselves. So, for instance, Pinker uses the example below:
Focus on function: "Participants were tested under conditions of good to excellent acoustic isolation" (p. 73).
Focus on description: "We tested the students in a quiet room" (p. 73).
We realize that in the first example, the researcher was focused on what makes the conditions optimal (and in what way they were optimal). But in the second example, it's much clearer to the lay audience what she's talking about, because she described the room instead of focusing on its function.
Technical terminology
Now certainly chunking and functional fixity can lend itself to a researcher using technical terminology or jargon in their grant proposals. But, sometimes researchers are just using a term that could be easily substituted. Pinker offers a relevant example, when he suggests that researchers instead of saying "murine model" say "with rats and mice."
To combat these, Pinker suggests that being aware of the gap between our knowledge, as experts, and our readers, as lesser-experts (in our area) is key to being able to write for our audience. But, he also suggests that after we complete a draft that we put it away for a while and then re-read and revise the draft with a fresh perspective. Additionally, have a representative of your audience review a draft and give you feedback on what is confusing and what might be more helpful.
There's really no way around the gap of knowledge that occurs between an expert and a novice, but experts can still write well for novices by acknowledging the gap and bridging it through writing.
Resources:
Write for your Reader: A Plain Language Handbook - NWT Literacy Council
Thursday, May 25, 2017
Using classic style to combat bad habits
In part two of our Steven Pinker style discussion, we look at the value of classic style in grant-writing. Pinker begins by saying that classic style can serve as "an antidote for academese...and other kinds of stuffy prose," (p. 27) which as a grant-writer working with academics is one of my top goals for you. :) Pinker suggests that the best way to describe classic style is "a writer in conversation with a reader, directs the reader's gaze to something in the world" (p. 56). He argues then that classic style draws on two of our most natural instincts (talking and seeing) to develop our writing. So, if we envision our reader being a bright, educated, researcher, what we're trying to do in our proposal is call their attention to our problem and have a discussion about the problem and the best ways to fix it.
However, academic writers fall into a whole bunch of bad habits when writing that add useless words and sentences into their writing and distract from their actual goal. As Pinker points out, "classic writing, with its assumption of equality between writer and reader, makes the reader feel like a genius. Bad writing makes the reader feel like a dunce" (p.36). Thus, below is some advice on classic style.
Use elegant metadiscourse:
I remember in high school when being assigned a term paper, my teacher instructed us to format the paper to "tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them," and this is not a bad place to start off your high school writing career, but there is some elegance that you need to accrue as you advance as a writer. Pinker tells us in fact to avoid this metadiscourse and to just tell people what we want to tell them. I'm not sure he was talking specifically about grant writing, however, I do think we can take away from this point that one should avoid repetition in any metadiscourse. Pinker suggests that returning to your overarching point and even using key words to summarize is useful, but don't say the same thing again; find a new way to describe and convey the crux of your piece.
Avoid hedging:
Pinker also describes how many people hedge in their writing and they fall into this bad habit unintentionally. He suggests that we can often chuck the hedging words. For instance, I can say, "the birds fly by my window" instead of saying, "Sometimes, the birds fly by my window," and be confident that no one will call me out, saying, "Oh yeah? There are birds flying by your window nonstop? Liar!" But returning to my second sentence I used to in this section, you may notice that I hedged by using the word "often." Sometimes, hedging is necessary. Ah! I did it again. But, it can be useful if we use it intentionally, if it's necessary to make the point.
Avoid turning verbs into nouns or adjectives:
In his discussion, Pinker cautions us from turning perfectly good active verbs into nouns, or what he describes as zombie nouns. For example, instead of "She affirmed his choice," we turn "affirm" into a zombie noun to say, "She granted him an affirmation." Maybe the second choice sounds a bit fancier, but it is certainly less clear or useful than the original when I let the verb be.
Avoid unnecessary passives:
Now, I've certainly chided you not to use the passive voice in grant writing when you can help it, but since Pinker suggests it, I must take the opportunity once again. Instead of saying, "The experiment will be conducted," say "I will do the experiment." There is no point in removing yourself from the project by writing your grant in passive, third person. Now, you may notice that our heading says to "avoid unnecessary passives." So when are they necessary? Pinker suggests that passives can be useful when we are trying to avoid unnecessary details. For instance, the phrase, "Helicopters were flown in" is passive, but may be the best way to say it since we don't want to get into the details of who was flying the helicopters.
In all of these suggestions, the thing to bear in mind is the importance of being intentional. There are times when breaking these guidelines will make the most sense and then you should. However, when re-reading your writing, look for where you're hedging, turning verbs into nouns or adjectives, or using passive voice, and take a moment to check if that is the most effective way to say it.
Resources:
The Sense of Style - Steven Pinker
Why academics have a hard time writing good grant proposals - Bob Porter
However, academic writers fall into a whole bunch of bad habits when writing that add useless words and sentences into their writing and distract from their actual goal. As Pinker points out, "classic writing, with its assumption of equality between writer and reader, makes the reader feel like a genius. Bad writing makes the reader feel like a dunce" (p.36). Thus, below is some advice on classic style.
Use elegant metadiscourse:
I remember in high school when being assigned a term paper, my teacher instructed us to format the paper to "tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them," and this is not a bad place to start off your high school writing career, but there is some elegance that you need to accrue as you advance as a writer. Pinker tells us in fact to avoid this metadiscourse and to just tell people what we want to tell them. I'm not sure he was talking specifically about grant writing, however, I do think we can take away from this point that one should avoid repetition in any metadiscourse. Pinker suggests that returning to your overarching point and even using key words to summarize is useful, but don't say the same thing again; find a new way to describe and convey the crux of your piece.
Avoid hedging:
Pinker also describes how many people hedge in their writing and they fall into this bad habit unintentionally. He suggests that we can often chuck the hedging words. For instance, I can say, "the birds fly by my window" instead of saying, "Sometimes, the birds fly by my window," and be confident that no one will call me out, saying, "Oh yeah? There are birds flying by your window nonstop? Liar!" But returning to my second sentence I used to in this section, you may notice that I hedged by using the word "often." Sometimes, hedging is necessary. Ah! I did it again. But, it can be useful if we use it intentionally, if it's necessary to make the point.
Avoid turning verbs into nouns or adjectives:
In his discussion, Pinker cautions us from turning perfectly good active verbs into nouns, or what he describes as zombie nouns. For example, instead of "She affirmed his choice," we turn "affirm" into a zombie noun to say, "She granted him an affirmation." Maybe the second choice sounds a bit fancier, but it is certainly less clear or useful than the original when I let the verb be.
Avoid unnecessary passives:
Now, I've certainly chided you not to use the passive voice in grant writing when you can help it, but since Pinker suggests it, I must take the opportunity once again. Instead of saying, "The experiment will be conducted," say "I will do the experiment." There is no point in removing yourself from the project by writing your grant in passive, third person. Now, you may notice that our heading says to "avoid unnecessary passives." So when are they necessary? Pinker suggests that passives can be useful when we are trying to avoid unnecessary details. For instance, the phrase, "Helicopters were flown in" is passive, but may be the best way to say it since we don't want to get into the details of who was flying the helicopters.
In all of these suggestions, the thing to bear in mind is the importance of being intentional. There are times when breaking these guidelines will make the most sense and then you should. However, when re-reading your writing, look for where you're hedging, turning verbs into nouns or adjectives, or using passive voice, and take a moment to check if that is the most effective way to say it.
Resources:
The Sense of Style - Steven Pinker
Why academics have a hard time writing good grant proposals - Bob Porter
Friday, May 19, 2017
It's not grammar but style
"Summer break" although elusive for many of us, seems like the ideal time to do some reading for pleasure. And, if that is your plan, I don't want to steal your joy, but I'd like to suggest a practical application for your fun-reading. To do this, I will offer a blog series on Steven Pinker's The Sense of Style, which I'll offer over the next couple weeks starting today.
In this book, Pinker works at "replacing dogma about usage with reason and evidence" (p. 6). Although he lauds the the great style-guide writers, such as Strunk & White, he also cautions against stringent language and grammar rules that seem to regard language as static instead of evolving and suggest that good writing is as simple as applying certain rules.
For me, it's a good reminder. With a technical writing background, I often catch myself offering bulleted lists to grant-writers, including 'get rid of all passive voice' and 'cut out hyperbole.' And, sure, this is in response to the overly complicated and layperson-unfriendly proposal-writing I often see, but I think we can learn from Pinker to find a balance between grammar rules and overly complicated writing that is not accessible to most.
Pinker argues for considering style in your writing for three reasons:
Pinker points out that we're often told that using the passive voice or using alliteration is bad practice, but that's simply not a hard and fast rule, and I'm not just defending alliteration because my name is Naomi Nishi! Instead we need to understand who we're writing for, what we're trying to tell them, and what's the best way to tell them. Oftentimes, in academia and in grant-writing, we think that all emotive words are inappropriate, but is that right even when our goal is to get our reader to feel something? In grant-writing, one of our key goals is to get our reader excited about our idea. Ridding our writing of anything that conveys excitement then is bad practice.
I'll admit something to you. Although I am a card-carrying Technical Writer (OK, I don't have a card, but a diploma), I have never been a stringent grammarian. So, as an experimental psychologist and a linguist, Pinker speaks to my writerly soul in his acknowledgement of the messy and dynamic nature of language where knowing "the rules" is useful, but accepting that these rules are and should be broken when it is for the good of your writing. I hope you will enjoy this series; I'm looking forward to it!
Resources:
The Sense of Style - Steven Pinker
Steven Pinker's Website
In this book, Pinker works at "replacing dogma about usage with reason and evidence" (p. 6). Although he lauds the the great style-guide writers, such as Strunk & White, he also cautions against stringent language and grammar rules that seem to regard language as static instead of evolving and suggest that good writing is as simple as applying certain rules.
For me, it's a good reminder. With a technical writing background, I often catch myself offering bulleted lists to grant-writers, including 'get rid of all passive voice' and 'cut out hyperbole.' And, sure, this is in response to the overly complicated and layperson-unfriendly proposal-writing I often see, but I think we can learn from Pinker to find a balance between grammar rules and overly complicated writing that is not accessible to most.
Pinker argues for considering style in your writing for three reasons:
- to make sure your reader understands: Unless it's in your diary, your writing is meant to communicate, so make sure you're doing that effectively.
- to build trust: As Pinker argues, sloppy or careless writing also communicates something to employers (or grant reviewers). It suggests that if you can't craft a resume or a proposal well, how can you be trusted to do a good job in the workplace or responsibly manage a research project?
- to offer joy: If you are reading a great novel this summer, you understand the importance of this, but it's also worth remembering for any other sort of writing, whether that be a publication you're developing or a grant proposal - do not sterilize your writing of your passion. Let your passion always infuse your writing.
Pinker points out that we're often told that using the passive voice or using alliteration is bad practice, but that's simply not a hard and fast rule, and I'm not just defending alliteration because my name is Naomi Nishi! Instead we need to understand who we're writing for, what we're trying to tell them, and what's the best way to tell them. Oftentimes, in academia and in grant-writing, we think that all emotive words are inappropriate, but is that right even when our goal is to get our reader to feel something? In grant-writing, one of our key goals is to get our reader excited about our idea. Ridding our writing of anything that conveys excitement then is bad practice.
I'll admit something to you. Although I am a card-carrying Technical Writer (OK, I don't have a card, but a diploma), I have never been a stringent grammarian. So, as an experimental psychologist and a linguist, Pinker speaks to my writerly soul in his acknowledgement of the messy and dynamic nature of language where knowing "the rules" is useful, but accepting that these rules are and should be broken when it is for the good of your writing. I hope you will enjoy this series; I'm looking forward to it!
Resources:
The Sense of Style - Steven Pinker
Steven Pinker's Website
Thursday, May 11, 2017
Research PR Tips
Being able to discuss your research with a broad audience can help you in many ways. It allows you to write for the layperson in your grants. It allows you to tell your story and get the word out about your research. It allows you to attract students and collaborators. After attending the National Organization of Research Development Professionals (NORDP) conference, I heard from several RD folks on how researchers can better market themselves and tell their story.
Below are some tips:
Have a website:
A website is an opportunity for you to make sense of your work to people who may be interested for a variety of reasons. This is a place where you can organize your research for non-experts and experts alike. It's a place to link to the press you've received and to market your publications and yourself. One website that I like belongs to Professor Jennifer A. Lewis who is admittedly a research rock star, conducting research on 3D Printing at Harvard. But look at the language and organization she uses to illustrate her multi-faceted research. She makes sense of her very complicated research to a broad audience. She is also using her website to link to all the news and publicity she has received on her work.
Create an elevator pitch:
Certainly, I've said this before, but having a clear and concise elevator pitch on your work can give you a great advantage. This is especially true for when you are meeting Program Officers or colleagues at conferences or when e-introducing yourself to folks who may be able to support you and your work in a variety of ways.
Have an FAQ page
When you're discussing your work with colleagues or laypeople, what questions do they ask? What seems unclear to them? Try to make a note when you're asked questions about your research to identify the hang-ups. You can then use these questions not only to revise and clarify how you talk about your research, but consider making an FAQ sheet that you can hand out at presentations or link to on your new website! An FAQ approach can be an easy-to-read approach to offering clarifying information on your research.
Use social media
At the NORDP conference, I was struck by how many folks get their NIH or NSF updates on twitter or how many are discussing research on facebook. If you're not familiar with these channels, try using the twitter hashtag at your next conference. You'll be able to engage and connect with people interested in the same areas as you. You can follow them and they can follow you. After the conference, continue to tweet about your research, especially any updates or publicity you receive.
Making your research clear and accessible to a wide range of people can grow your reach and ultimately your support and network. So, consider these ideas to build good PR around you and your work!
Resources:
Tips for using social media to promote your research - Nature
Developing a PR Plan - Entrepreneur
Below are some tips:
Have a website:
A website is an opportunity for you to make sense of your work to people who may be interested for a variety of reasons. This is a place where you can organize your research for non-experts and experts alike. It's a place to link to the press you've received and to market your publications and yourself. One website that I like belongs to Professor Jennifer A. Lewis who is admittedly a research rock star, conducting research on 3D Printing at Harvard. But look at the language and organization she uses to illustrate her multi-faceted research. She makes sense of her very complicated research to a broad audience. She is also using her website to link to all the news and publicity she has received on her work.
Create an elevator pitch:
Certainly, I've said this before, but having a clear and concise elevator pitch on your work can give you a great advantage. This is especially true for when you are meeting Program Officers or colleagues at conferences or when e-introducing yourself to folks who may be able to support you and your work in a variety of ways.
Have an FAQ page
When you're discussing your work with colleagues or laypeople, what questions do they ask? What seems unclear to them? Try to make a note when you're asked questions about your research to identify the hang-ups. You can then use these questions not only to revise and clarify how you talk about your research, but consider making an FAQ sheet that you can hand out at presentations or link to on your new website! An FAQ approach can be an easy-to-read approach to offering clarifying information on your research.
Use social media
At the NORDP conference, I was struck by how many folks get their NIH or NSF updates on twitter or how many are discussing research on facebook. If you're not familiar with these channels, try using the twitter hashtag at your next conference. You'll be able to engage and connect with people interested in the same areas as you. You can follow them and they can follow you. After the conference, continue to tweet about your research, especially any updates or publicity you receive.
Making your research clear and accessible to a wide range of people can grow your reach and ultimately your support and network. So, consider these ideas to build good PR around you and your work!
Resources:
Tips for using social media to promote your research - Nature
Developing a PR Plan - Entrepreneur
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)