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
Friday, November 17, 2017
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)