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

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

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