Fall 2018 Seminar Videos

We're happy to announce that we have posted the edited videos from our fall 2018 seminars on our vimeo site. Below are the summaries from our seminars and you can find the video links here.

NIH K Awardees Panel

Faculty Experts: Sarah Borengasser, Assistant Professor, School of Medicine; Heather Coats, Assistant Professor, College of Nursing; & Danielle Soranno, Assistant Professor, School of Medicine

The mentored NIH Research Career Development Award or K Award is unique among NIH grants. Successful candidates not only have to propose an excellent research plan but also have to show that they need mentoring and that they have the potential to be independent investigators. Join us to better understand the NIH K Awards and hear from recent awardees of the K01, K99, and K08. 

Academic v. Grant Writing

Faculty Expert: Bud Talbot, Associate Professor, Science Education and Laurel Hartley, Associate Professor, Biology

Research faculty need to write a lot, writing articles and grant proposals in particular. But, these are very different types of writing. The academic writing that goes into articles is often oriented toward other experts in the field. Proposal writing however requires the PI to pitch their idea and convince readers to invest in their project. In this seminar we will look at the difference between these types of writing, looking particularly at how you can switch gears from academic writing to grant writing. Additionally, we will learn from our faculty experts how to write in these different capacities collaboratively.

Scientific & Grant Writing Symposium

Faculty Guest Experts: Spero Manson, Associate Dean for Research, Colorado School of Public Health; Jennifer Kemp, Director, Research Office, Department of Medicine; Garth Sundem, Science Writer, Cancer Center; and Naomi Nishi, Associate Director of ORDE

Science writing and grant writing are not usually considered synonymous with clear and compelling writing. This is usually because science and grant writing require engaging complex, and highly technical subject matter. But, it can be done. Join us for this symposium and hear from several professional science/grant writers on how to improve your craft.

New Faculty Symposium

Faculty Expert: Bob Damrauer, Associate Vice Chancellor, Office of Research Services

Early Career Investigators often feel a bit isolated from the research community on a new campus. This new faculty symposium is an opportunity to familiarize yourself with the CU Denver research community and introduce yourself and your work. You also will learn more about all of the research processes and resources available to you.

Know Your Agency: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Faculty Expert: Shale Wong, Professor, School of Medicine

In the Know Your Agency Lunches, we feature a specific agency and ask either an investigator funded by the agency or an agency insider to give an overview of the agency and offer some of the nuances that might not be readily available on the website or program announcement. These lunches also offer an opportunity for investigators interested in applying to the agency the chance to ask questions of someone more experienced with the agency.

Resources:

ORDE Fall 2018 Seminar Videos

ORDE Spring 2019 Registration

Structuring your paragraph

Oftentimes, writers break to a new paragraph without a lot of thought. When you have a new idea, start a new paragraph is the guideline under which most of us operate. Yet, when we think about it from the reader's perspective, when a paragraph does not contain a complete thought or when a new paragraph makes a giant leap to a new subject without warning, our heads are left spinning!

So, as writers, there are a couple of things we can do to keep our readers from getting lost or frustrated. Using the mnemonic device MEAL, we can remember what should be in most paragraphs...

M - ain idea: This is your topic sentence; it sets up your reader to know what the paragraph is about

E - vidence: Of course, most main ideas need a little justification, so your evidence portion is a couple of sentences that back up your main idea.

A - nalysis: You're writing about this topic, because you have something to say about it, so what is your take on the main idea and the evidence you've cited?

L - ink or Last thought: This is a sentence or two where you conclude your thoughts and/or provide a linking sentence to the next paragraph.

Let's look at an example from an NIH award abstract:

Main  Evidence  Analysis  Link/Last thought

Excessive anxiety and fear leads to anxiety disorders, which impact many aspects of life, from the interpersonal to professional spheres. Although each anxiety disorder has different symptoms, they all share a core feature: mal-adaptive expression of high levels of anxiety. In our study, we will study how the brain suppresses anxiety. Prior studies showed the amygdala is largely responsible for generating high anxiety and fear, while the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) decreases these behaviors, possibly by inhibiting amygdala output. Indeed, in humans higher vmPFC activation correlates with lower amygdala activation and decreased anxiety. These data suggest the vmPFC-amygdala pathway may decrease anxiety and fear, but they rely on correlative measures, and can't directly test this hypothesis. We used optogenetics to directly test if the vmPFC-amygdala projection suppresses anxiety and fear. 

Remarkably, optogenetic activation of the vmPFC-amygdala pathway robustly inhibits innate anxiety and learned fear, while inhibition of this pathway increases anxiety.... 

As with any writing rule, there are exceptions and easily-readable paragraphs that leave out one component or another. Yet, when you pull all of the paragraphs together in a section, they should include all of the MEAL components pretty regularly.

In terms of paragraph organization, Otto Yang, in his book, Guide to Effective Grant Writing: How to Write a Successful NIH Grant Application, offers a technique to better construct and organize your paragraphs.  For one section, take the first line of every paragraph and put them together to see if those lead sentences alone give you an understanding of the piece.  This is important especially for grant-writing where reviewers often skim the numerous proposals they review. Giving your reviewers clear sign posts at the start of a paragraph will be much appreciated.

Although these techniques are helpful when you're writing, often they're more useful to apply when you are re-reading and revising.  You've already gotten your thoughts down and they seem to flow, but perhaps you'll realize in making revisions that your reader will have to read half-way through many of your paragraphs before they understand your main point.  In this case, it may serve you and your reader well to apply some paragraph revisions.

Resources:
Paragraphing with the MEAL Plan - Capella University
Paragraphs - University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Writing Center

Personalize your grant approach

As we are in the season of abundant greeting cards, I've been reminded of the power of a personalized approach in the grants world. At first glance, there are so many proposals and so many PIs competing for external funding that to put a personal touch on your grant approach may feel like trying to stick a flower in a waterfall. However, there are some opportunities for creating a personal touch that you may not have considered before...

Talking with a PO
If you follow this blog, you've surely seen many entries that focus on working with Program Officers. It's important to work with POs to get their feedback on your project and the direction of your research. Some POs even mentor early career investigators with whom they develop a relationship early on. But beyond that, having a PO know who you are and be rooting for you is invaluable. For instance, at some agencies when POs have money left in their budget at the end of the fiscal year, they call those researchers that they know and know do great work to submit a proposal for the funds. Having a PO support you and care about your career is a great asset!

Sending a thank you card
Although sending a thank you card in a professional setting may sound a little antiquated, it's another way to personalize your approach to grants. I argue that sending hand-written thank you cards should be done liberally. When you meet a PO or reviewers/potential reviewers at a conference, send them a follow-up note, thanking them or saying how much you enjoyed the conversation. The truth is few people send hand-written notes, so it can make you stand out and remind seasoned researchers who you are the next time they come across your proposal.

Drawing on reviewer's/PO's research
Before having a conversation with a PO or someone you think might review your proposal, do a bit of research on their research. If you're not sure if their work might overlap with yours, it's important to find out so that you don't insult them when talking about something where they are considered a preeminent scholar. Knowing someone's research is also an excellent way to make a positive impression. Many academics feel like their work isn't read widely enough, so when you have a conversation and talk about how you're drawing on their work, it's exciting for them! Not only is it a bit of an ego boost, but also it shows them that your work is building on their's and it's important for them to see it go further.

Holiday notes
Lastly, since we are in the season, why not get some professional season's greetings cards and send them out to POs and colleagues? Add a short note that says you've enjoyed working with them this year and wishing them a happy new year. Again, this can just be a simple way of getting your name in front of a PO and a reminder that not only are you a brilliant researcher, but you're a nice person who knows how to network!

Resources:
My Best Grant Writing Tip - GrantGopher.com
Can we talk? Contacting Grant Program Officers - Robert Porter

Showing the cutting edge

One thing I tend to notice when reviewing grant proposals for faculty internally is that they are often lacking in describing the cutting edge research. In fact, it's not uncommon for a PI to not really talk about their project in the context of past research at all. This is a big oversight. If you haven't couched your project in what has been done already, you set up your reviewers to wonder 1. Do you understand the research landscape in this area? and 2. Has this project already been done? or 3. Is this the best project to do in this area right now?

Now, I can certainly understand how this gets left out. You are space limited in most grant proposals, so it's certainly enticing to just jump right into what you want to do and why it's important. But, remember, to show the importance of your study, you need to offer contextual research. More than that, you must show you're the right person for the job by showing the contributions you've made to research in this area in the past.

To do this, I give you a formula for describing and contextualizing your project in the research...

Describe the cutting edge of current research:
You don't want to give reviewers a full literature review in your grant proposal; most likely that's not an option with page constraints anyway. But you do want to give them an overview of the most cutting-edge research in the field. Remember, some reviewers may not be in your exact field, so they aren't up-to-date on the latest and greatest, so let them know. Use this description of the cutting edge to generate some excitement about the field and your work.

Show your contributions:
One thing PIs sometimes forget is that they not only have to make a case for their amazing research, but they also need to show that they are the best person to do this research. So, when you're describing the cutting edge research, be sure to position yourself in it as a thought leader and cutting-edge researcher yourself.

Identify the gaps:
Once you've clued your reviewers into what's happening that's so exciting in your field and what you've done thus far, segue into what is the next thing that needs to be done. Outline the gaps in the cutting-edge research and what needs to happen to keep the field moving forward.

Show why your gap should be filled:
Sometimes PIs outline the gaps in their grant proposal but don't take the extra step to explain why it's so important to fill these gaps. This can be a fatal flaw in a proposal. Don't assume that your reviewers will inherently understand why your project is important. Close the loop and explain the whole thing, even if you think it's unnecessary. Your reviewers will be thankful for the clarity.

Show how you will fill it and offer the ongoing vision
Once you've made the case for your project, show how your project will accomplish all the needs that you described in your case. And as the icing on the cake, bring them back to the vision of your research and what will be possible in the future as you progress.

If you use these items as a checklist, you'll be sure to incorporate all the items you need in your proposal to make a clear and compelling case for your project.

Resources:
The Heilmeier Catechism
Heilmeier Catechism: Nine Questions You Must Answer to Develop a Meaningful Data Science Project - Data Scientist Insights

Taking control of your research

One of the things I love about the fall semester is welcoming our newest faculty members. It's exciting to watch these new assistant professors infuse the university with their unique research and ideas. Although most new faculty come in raring to go on their research, the first barrier they run into is teaching their first classes. Suddenly, all of the excitement to kick off their research agenda is replaced by stress in developing a syllabus and managing multiple classrooms.

This is understandable, teaching is intensive, and particularly when you're teaching a class you've never taught before. But, oftentimes after a successful fall of teaching, new faculty take a well-deserved break over the holidays, and come spring, there is a whole new crop of students sitting in class ready to learn. Next thing you know, it's fall of your second year, and you feel guilty for letting your research lag...

Don't let this happen to you! When it comes to kicking off your faculty research, here are some tips:

Outline your plan
If you're coming directly from getting your PhD or completing a Postdoc, you're certainly no stranger to research, but you may not have had total control of your research agenda until now. Even as a Postdoc, usually you were working on the projects of your mentor. Now, you have your very own gig, but with this freedom can come some dilemmas. To keep this empowerment from overwhelming you, take some time to review and develop your research agenda. What research can you start on to get your feet wet and get some preliminary data to begin applying for grants? And, what's your end game? What do you want to have a reputation for in 10 years? Make sure your research agenda and plan are steering you toward your ultimate goal.

Find mentors
As mentioned, as a new Assistant Professor, you have a lot of freedom about what you work on and how much and when, but sometimes you may feel like you're spinning your wheels while you figure that out. This is where mentors are so important. Find research mentors who can work with you to sort out what you want to do and give guidance on prioritizing your work. Mentors have been there and done that. They've made mistakes that they might be able to help you avoid, or at least help you work through if you make the same mistake. So, find a mentor, or a circle of mentors, to support and advise you.

Develop a schedule and good habits
Once you know where you're going in terms of your research and have a mentorship team to support you, time to get to it. Make sure you set yourself up for success by mapping out when you will conduct your research and write. Know when you are most effective during the day and capitalize on your most productive time by doing your most important work then. Perhaps create a writing group with other early career researchers to create some accountability and get feedback from your peers. You likely know your bad habits. So, combat them by planning against them. If you tend to procrastinate, try to build new habits that allow you to complete tasks early or by your own fake deadlines.

By putting your research first, you'll find that by next year, you will still be busy, but you will be and will feel productive!

Resources:
Do You REALLY Want to Be a Professor - Kerry Ann Rockquemore
30 Tips for Successful Academic Research and Writing - Deborah Lupton

Know Your Agency: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

OVERVIEW
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) history involves a prestigious family, the company Johnson & Johnson, and a Founder with health problems. In 1936, Robert Wood Johnson II began a small community foundation known as the Johnson New Brunswick Foundation. He bankrolled it and made all funding decisions. He renamed it the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in 1952, but it still ran in the same informal fashion, targeting New Jersey. Upon his death in 1968, he left specific instructions and the bulk of his estate ($1.2 billion in Johnson & Johnson stock, the company his father created) to fund a grander version of his Foundation – a process that formally began in 1972. Today RWJF is one of the world’s largest philanthropies and the largest US philanthropy devoted to health with total assets of over $10.5 billion in 2017 (Source: RWJF Financial Statement, Dec 31, 2017, p. 3). Health and healthcare were important issues to Mr. Johnson, both because he served as CEO of Johnson & Johnson for years and because of his health history – fighting various medical issues throughout his life caused by a bout with rheumatic fever as a child (Source: “Billion Dollar Heist”, May 2012, p. 3).

Approach/Specific Interests 
The Foundation mission was set by the Founder and continues today – to improve the health and health care of all Americans. The mission is pursued these days through adoption of the Foundation’s vision – building a national culture of health. The Foundation’s new President has called this their “North Star” (Source: 2018 Annual Message). The concept culture of health is defined by RWJF as “. . . individuals, neighborhoods, communities, businesses, organizations, and decision-makers embracing health as an esteemed American value and expecting it to be a routine part of life” (Source: 2013 RWJF Presidential Letter, p. 6). This vision has informed major changes to RWJF’s organization, purpose, and funding portfolio. A comprehensive review of RWJF’s past work, structure, and priorities has led to new or renewed long-term priorities.

RWJF’s four Focus Areas based on the national culture of health vision are:
• Healthy Communities
• Healthy Children, Healthy Weight
• Health Systems
• Health Leadership

AGENCY ORGANIZATION 
RWJF leadership includes a President/CEO and a 14- member Board of Trustees. The Research, Evaluation, and Learning Division, headed by the Foundation’s Chief Science Officer, houses program officers and other research-related staff in all Foundation focus areas. A Division of Proposal Management handles all aspects of the online submission system and the award process.

AGENCY GRANTS PROCESS 
RWJF has funded research projects, intervention projects, large-scale community-based programs, and other project types to meet their mission over the years. The Research, Evaluation, and Learning Division makes awards through Calls for Proposals (CFPs) which provide specific topic areas, eligibility criteria, the amount of money set aside for the competition, the number of projects they expect to fund, potential approaches, and specific deadlines. Recent CFPs include one on connecting the nation’s fragmented medical, social, and public health systems; one targeting healthy eating; one related to discovering what factors promote adoption of policies that result in a culture of health; and one on community-research partnerships addressing resilience. Eligible applicants include public agencies, universities, and public charities. All proposals are submitted through the RWJF online portal. Most competitions use a two-step proposal process: Step 1 preproposals and Step 2 invited full proposals. Funding ranges vary by CFP. Turnaround time for full proposals runs from three to seven months.

Awards 
In 2016, the Foundation made 850 grant awards for a total of $386 million (Source: RWJF Grants Explorer Database).

Resources:
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Website
Know Your Agency Brief: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation - ORDE

Making your proposal easy reading

I've been reviewing some writing recently and found myself making edits or suggestions around sentence length in some places where sentences went on for three-four lines, but left sentences of the same length alone in other places. This got me thinking, what's happening in those long sentences I let slide that made them easier to read than those I revised? To provide some answers to this question and the broader question of what you can do to make your grant writing easier to read, consider these tips:

Use first person, active voice
I've said this before, but I'll say it again, it is much easier to read writing that is written in the first person (using I and we instead of "the PI" or "the research team"). Of course, there are still granting agencies that frown on use of the first person, so if that is the case, always follow their rules first. But, even if you are forced into third person, you can still use active voice.

Third person, passive voice: The experiment will be conducted by the PI.

Third person, active voice: The PI will conduct the experiment.

First person, active voice: I will conduct the experiment.

You'll notice that not only is the first person, active voice example easier to read, but it's also shorter!

Read it aloud
Many writers/editors work to strike a conversational tone in their work. But, how do you do that? Well, try turning the written word into the spoken word to see how it sounds. Try reading what you have written and revise the turns of phrase that don't roll off the tongue the way they did the pen. And, of course, if you can engage someone else in listening to your talk and get their opinion, you've gone one step further to making your writing conversational.

Avoid big and vague words
Research is often dealing with highly technical or theoretical concepts, and of course, these areas lend themselves to some whopper, super-smart-sounding, words. These five dollar words are fantastic to include in your scholarly articles, but when it comes to grant-writing, they will likely not earn you any bonus points. Consider the reviewer who you send to the dictionary a couple of times. With a stack of grant applications next to them, they probably won't thank you for building their vocabulary and may resent the extra time they spend reading when you should have explained things for them.

One thought = One sentence
Circling back to our original query of why some long sentences are easier to read than others, I think where writers often get into trouble is when they try to put more than one thought in a sentence. Aside from considering the tips above, one thing that makes sentences difficult to read is when they become a list of conjunctive clauses. When you find a sentence that is long, and it's riddled with ands, or it is plum full of ors, but you lose the point of it somewhere along the way, and then the writer shifts ideas, or then they try to bring it back around, but you are already lost, and so...you get the point. That last sentence wasn't much longer than others I've used in this blog, but it just wanders on. Even if you had no trouble following it, you were probably getting a little annoyed. So, try to keep your sentences short, but if you need to get lengthy on a couple, do all you can to keep them readable and focused on one idea.


Resources
3 Quick-and-Easy Tips to Make Your Writing Easier to Read and More Effective - Jen Stevens
Making Your Writing Easy to Read - Cheryl Stevens

Know Your Agency: American Diabetes Association

This week we wanted to profile the American Diabetes Association for those interested in their funding opportunities:

OVERVIEW

In 1945, 26 physicians joined together to form a new association to help them pool knowledge about a perplexing disease. Today, the American Diabetes Association (ADA), located in Arlington, VA, has three main roles: 1) supporting research, 2) advocating for additional resources, and 3) providing information and support for those living with diabetes or at-risk for developing diabetes and for healthcare professionals. (Source: ADA 2017 and Beyond, p. 2)

Specific Interests

ADA funds research on Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, pre-diabetes, obesity, gestational diabetes, and diabetic complications. (Source: We Are Research Leaders)

Approach

Organized as a voluntary health agency, ADA funds basic and clinical/translational research efforts – primarily supporting pilot project and early career investigator opportunities through their research program. The ultimate goal of this research program is to encourage new ideas and breakthroughs in diabetes research. ADA expects their investigators to then parlay their findings into larger funding, a strategy that has proven successful as more than 90% of their researchers have funding from other sources within 5 years (Source: Research 2017 Year in Review, p. 13). In addition to its grants program, ADA also publishes several leading peer-reviewed scholarly journals including Diabetes, Diabetes Care, and Diabetes Spectrum.

AGENCY ORGANIZATION

The ADA is led by a Chief Executive Officer and Leadership Team, and is governed by a Board of Directors. While ADA membership was originally limited to health care professionals, as the agency’s roles increased, membership was opened to general members beginning in 1970 (Source: 75^th Anniversary Timeline). Today, their membership consists of over 14,000 health care professionals, and 500,000 people with diabetes, their families and caregivers.

AGENCY GRANTS PROCESS

The agency’s external research program, started in 1952, has provided funding for more than 4,700 research grants at $807.4 million since its inception (Source: Research Programs Grant Portfolio web page). Today, ADA offers two major grant programs:

1) CORE RESEARCH PROGRAMS FOR FACULTY

This is the standard research grants program. Applications are due in April with awards starting in January of the following year. Preference is given to less established researchers. Competitions offered are:

•         Innovative Basic Science Research Awards – $115,000/year for up to 3 years
•         Innovative Clinical or Translational Science Research Awards –  $200,000/year for up to 3 years
•         Junior Faculty Development Awards –$138,000/year for up to 4 years; supports investigators up to Assistant Professor rank with less than 10 years of research experience beyond receipt of terminal degree

2) PATHWAY TO STOP DIABETES® INITIATIVE

This nomination-based program is designed to bring in a new generation of diabetes researchers, and puts the focus on people instead of projects. Each award provides $1.625 million in total funding. Institutions are limited to one nomination across three possible categories:

•        Initiator Award – Provides transitional funding at the postdoctoral level through independent researcher status (7 years of funding)
•         Accelerator Award – Targets early career investigators (5 years of funding)
•        Visionary Award – Seeks established, productive investigators who wish to move into diabetes research (5 years of funding) 

Awards:

In 2017, the Association invested more than $37.4 million, supporting 371 research projects in their Core Program. Basic research accounted for 65% of this spending with the remainder allocated to clinical/ translational research efforts. (Source: Research 2017 Year in Review, p. 15). From 2013 through 2018, the Pathway Program has funded 29 scientists, a $47 million investment. (Source: 2017 Pathway Annual Summary Report, p. 8)

For more information on the ADA, see the links below

Resources:

Know Your Agency Brief: ADA - ORDE

ADA Grants Programs

Grant Writing vs. Academic Writing

Research faculty have generally done plenty of academic writing in their training and careers, but oftentimes they have done less grant writing by the time they're ready to apply for grant proposals. This shift in writing genre can feel like a rude awakening, quite simply because the rules and acceptable styles are different in a grant proposal versus a scholarly publication. Below are some of the ways they are different.

Difference in Purpose
One of the biggest differences between a proposal and a publication is that a publication is usually sharing research that you've already completed. Proposals on the other hand are focused on making a case for the research you want to do. However, proposals do require a discussion of the cutting edge research and gaps in that research similar to what you see in a literature review in a publication. Also, many granting agencies expect PIs to have preliminary data to be competitive for a grant, so PIs must describe work they've already done in making a case for the work they want to do.

Audience
One of the similarities between publications and proposals is that they are generally peer-reviewed. That means, someone like you (a researcher in your field) is asked to weigh in on whether your work should be published or funded. The key difference is that usually your publication is sent to a few reviewers who individually review your publication and send feedback and a recommendation through the journal editor. For a proposal, usually a larger group of peers review your grant proposal and weigh in after discussing it as a group. These larger groups tend to include peers who are further away from your area of expertise. Some agencies even include non-experts on review panels in which case your proposal must be accessible to the layperson

Citations
In publications, oftentimes scholars use citations to justify their inclusion or use a particular theory or framework without a full explanation of that theory/framework, since they assume that the readers will know it or can go research it through the articles they've cited. In a proposal, you cannot rely on citations in the same way. You must instead clearly outline the theory, methods, or framework you are engaging in addition to citing it. Certainly, you cannot expect a grant reviewer to go and do additional research to understand your grant; they've usually been given a whole stack of proposals to review at a time. This is another difference between grant reviewers and journal reviewers. Anytime I've been asked to review a journal article, I am only asked to review one at a time.

Format
Certainly, publications expect you to follow some guidelines and style requirements for your submission for publication, but these guidelines and requirements are usually much larger and more stringent for a grant proposal. The majority of grant proposals submitted are not even reviewed because they did not follow the format rules or the project was not in line with the mission of the agency. So, it's best to read and re-read the grant proposal guidelines and to follow them closely.

In closing, it's true that good writing is good writing, but what makes writing good in most cases is that it is written with the audience in mind.

References:
Why academics have a hard time writing good grant proposals - Robert Porter
Academic vs. Grant Writing - ORDE

Tips for applying for an NIH K award

Last week, ORDE hosted an NIH K Awardee Panel at our Anschutz Medical Campus with three faculty members who had successfully competed for a K01, K08, or K99, and they had some great advice, which I wanted to recap here.

First, to step back, the NIH K, or Research Career Development Award is a mentored grant. Most of the K mechanisms are for early career investigators, including Post Docs and Assistant Professors who have yet to successfully compete for an R01 or similar award for independent investigators. The goal of these K awards are to fund these promising investigators and to invest in their development, such that they can compete for their R01 or like award by the time they've finished their K.

Tips from former awardees:

The K proposal is unlike any proposal.
Since the K is a mentored award, you probably already realize it's different, but what the awardees stressed was how different it is. You must propose a research plan, a mentoring plan, and a career development plan that is integrated, where the components are mutually beneficial. Your mentoring  and career development plans should complement your research plan, and vice versa. There are also many letters of support required from a variety of people to show not only the commitment of your mentoring team, but also your institution's commitment to you to support you in your K.

Work with your Program Officer.
Although our awardees differed in their discussions about how easy it was to work with their Program Officers, the resounding theme was that each worked with them as much as possible. One awardee had met her Program Officer at a conference almost a decade before submitting her K, and the two had strategized about her research career. Another awardee had a bad first experience with her Program Officer, but despite that, she persisted and continued to engage that PO with her work and her proposal.

Plan to resubmit. 
All of the awardees on our panel had resubmitted their K proposals, with the exception of one who was allowed to make a rebuttal on her proposal without fully resubmitting. The awardees all agreed that those working on their K applications should plan for at least one resubmission, which is difficult given the time it takes to write your K. If you are like most and your first K application is not funded, work with your Program Officer to make the right improvements on your proposal, also don't let the rejection stop you from moving forward with the career development you planned. Go ahead and take the course you needed. Yes, you'll need to take it out of your proposal, but showing that you've moved ahead with things anyway, shows reviewers your commitment to your career.

Find and work with your primary mentor closely.
Your primary mentor should be someone who is a successfully funded researcher and has mentored other successful K awardees in the past. Given your mentor's experience, make sure you are working closely with them before you submit your proposal as they will be your best source of advice, coaching, and mentoring even before they are your official K mentor. Also, choose a mentor that you have a track record with, but not one you've worked with for a long time. You don't want reviewers to wonder what more you can learn from your mentor if you've already been with them for a few years.

Lastly, create a support network as you embark on your K application. Seek out those who have applied and who are applying; ask them to review draft proposals. Also, seek out the resources on campus, like ORDE and the CCTSI. The K application is a tricky one, so do all you can to set yourself up for success!

Resources:
ORDE NIH K Presentation
CCTSI PreK Program

The Grant Development Cycle

Many of us in research development, talk about "grant development," whereas those outside the field often talk about "grant writing." But grant developers use this phrase in recognition that grant writing is just one part of the grant development process. Below is an image of the grant development cycle. I call it a cycle intentionally, because as any successfully funded researcher will tell you, it never ends, whether you need to revise and resubmit or continue working toward your next grant after awarded to sustain your research, you must stay engaged in grant development.

To expand on this cycle, below are steps you should follow to develop a competitive grant proposal:

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 most researchers. Remember, the biggest difference between those investigators who ultimately are funded and those who aren't is whether or not they keep submitting grants.

Resources:
Navigating the Grant Development Process - enago academy
Grant Lifecycle - University of Utah

Who is the layperson and why should I write for them?

So, we frequently hear grumbling amongst researchers when they are asked to write something on their research for the layperson. And, I get it, you spend years and years becoming an expert in your field, you're on the cutting-edge, and it's annoying to have to return to the more rudimentary concepts and explain them to someone who hasn't bothered to read the foundational texts in your field!

But, as someone who has had a career writing for the layperson or educating the layperson, allow me to answer the question, "who is the layperson and why should I write for them?" To do this, I'll try to disperse some myths.

Myth #1: The layperson isn't smart.
Many researchers believe that writing for the layperson is watering down or vastly oversimplifying their research for the layperson who could never possibly understand the complexity of the research. This is a myth because the layperson is smart, the layperson has their own expertise; it's just not in your exact area. They are capable of understanding the complexity of your research, but you are going to have to educate them. To educate them, try to understand your audience better. What can you assume they already know? What concepts might they understand that you can draw on to relate to your research? What are they most interested in learning?

Myth #2: It's not worth writing for the layperson.
PIs often suggest that their grant reviewers are not laypeople, so what's the point in writing specific aims or a project overview that a layperson can understand? A couple of responses. First, are you sure that your reviewers will not include laypeople? Some agencies include patients, consumers, or other stakeholders who are laypeople as reviewers. If these folks don't understand your grant proposal, don't think they'll just chalk it up to you being so smart that it would be impossible for them to understand what you're doing. The second reason is even experts in your field appreciate you writing for the layperson, because it means you are writing in a clear and compelling manner. Even in my own field, I appreciate when a scholar lays out a theory or method that I use regularly such that a layperson could understand it because I can then draw on the way they define/describe the concepts in my own work. I can't remember a time that I was annoyed at how basic someone's description was in a grant proposal even in my own area of expertise.

Myth #3: Good research writing is complicated.
You're likely familiar with the old adage that you understand something better when you teach it. And, as a faculty researcher, you've likely experienced this; you know XX101 like the back of your hand. Now, I'm not comparing laypeople to that undergraduate who never does his/her homework and can't be bothered to show up to class on time (see myth #1). What I am saying is that when you approach research writing whether for grants or peer-reviewed journals as trying to teach your work to an audience, you will end up with a clear, compelling, and understandable text. Many of us assume that good research writing is challenging to read, and this comes from being trained to wade through a lot of bad writing by more seasoned colleagues throughout our educational and research experience. But, it's time to break this myth and say, "No, we can write about our research without exasperating and frustrating our reader, even when they're a layperson!"

I hope you will join me in this myth busting cause, for the sake of your research, for the sake of your reviewers, for the sake of the layperson!

Resources:

Writing for Lay Audiences: A Challenge for Scientists - Joselita T. Salita
Top Tips for Writing a Lay Summary - Academy of Medical Sciences
Academic and Research Paper Writing in Layman's Language - enago academy

Applying for Pilot Grants

Many investigators joke that to get a grant for your research you have to have completed the research to report your results in your proposal for the project you've already done. And there is a bit of truth in this jest. Most grant-making agencies today want to see significant preliminary data before investing in your project and you with a grant.

This can create a catch 22 for PIs when they need funding to move forward with the projects to get preliminary data. When you're in this situation, your institution may have internal grants programs to help get you going. For instance, at the University of Colorado Denver Campus, the Office of Research Services has an internal grants program to get faculty off and running.

Externally, there are grants for pilot projects or new innovative projects, as outlined in our latest e-book. When applying for these types of grants, it is important that you develop a larger vision for your research beyond your pilot or seed project. What is your ultimate goal? Where will you secure funding for your larger project? Once you know where you're ultimately going with your research and how you will get there, you need to identify the parameters of your pilot or seed project that will allow you to secure the preliminary data you need to compete for your bigger project.

Once you know what you must accomplish in your initial project, you'll be able to outline a budget and clearly describe not only your small initial project but also make the case for what this project will allow you to do afterward.

It's important to note that while some pilot grants are really for the very initial stages of research, some do require some preliminary data or at least expect it, so as you comb through the pilot grant book, bear this in mind and read the program announcement thoroughly to determine if the program will meet your needs and if you can meet its demands.

Remember, as with all of our e-books, they are meant to give you a start, and for our faculty on the CU Denver | AMC campuses, we encourage you to contact us to set up a personalized fund search so that we can point you toward programs that align with you and your needs.

Resources:
Pilot Project Funding e-book - ORDE

Starting the semester off right with your research

Well, I must have blinked, because summer break is over. Hopefully, you had a productive summer and are returning refreshed! As faculty start coming back to the classroom, it is tempting to focus on your teaching to the detriment of your research. Then, you blink again, and it's winter break. Once more, and spring is over and you're left wondering where the year went and why you didn't move your research forward as much as you'd hoped.

It's a story we hear again and again at ORDE, and we get it, juggling research, teaching, and service is a lot to manage for even the most seasoned scholar. But, in hopes of prompting you to stay on track with your research in this new academic year, we suggest you plan out your year using three key research strands: grants, pubs, and projects.

If you're a new faculty member, sometimes it can feel as though the research production game is a cycle that's hard to break into. You want money for your research, but you don't have enough pubs to be competitive for a grant. You need to complete a research project to then publish on, but you need grant funds to cover your project expenses...

So, consider what you can accomplish with each strand. Figure out what grant programs would align with your research and figure out when the deadlines are. Plan back from there. We recommend that researchers plan on six months for their grant development process, including the time spent researching the agency and reaching out/building rapport with a Program Officer.

Once those timelines are on your calendar, think about what you can do to bolster your application. Are there a couple of publications you need to finish writing based on your last project? Be sure to map those on your timeline as well. Lastly, what project are you currently working on, what is your plan to complete it? Would a smaller, internal seed grant help you to produce a bit more? This might allow you another publication or give you more preliminary data with which you can wow reviewers and give them confidence in funding your next, bigger project.

Yes, this is a lot of work, and you do have teaching responsibilities that take a chunk of time, but taking a little time now to plot out your research plan for the academic year will help keep you on track so that you don't end up in the spring feeling behind!

Resources:
Proposal Development Planning Resources - ORDE
Writing a Research Plan - Science

Applying for early investigator career grants

**Please note for those of you who followed the links below on 7/31, you may have found the 2017 e-book. Please follow the link now to access the 2018 e-book. Sorry for the confusion!**

This week, ORDE released our New Investigator Funding e-book. This book outlines a variety of career-type grant programs. Many agencies offer grant programs that are designed to cultivate early career investigators. These career awards focus on promising junior investigators that agencies want to invest in. However, these career grants are quite diverse.

Below are four questions you'll want to answer before deciding to apply to any new investigator grant program.

1.     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.

2.     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.

  

3.     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.

4.     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.

After perusing our e-book, we suggest that you contact ORDE with any questions and to have us conduct a personalized fund search for you (if you are a CU Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus faculty member). We look forward to helping you!

Resource:

Research Funding Opportunities for New Investigators - ORDE

ORDE Fall Faculty Seminars Open for Registration

I'm happy to announce that we have released our fall faculty seminars and they are open for registration. All faculty on our CU Denver and Anschutz Medical Campuses and our affiliates are welcome to attend. Lunch is served and resources are provided at each program. We hope you'll join us! Please register here: http://www.ucdenver.edu/research/ORDE/Pages/FacultySeminar.aspx

AMC: NIH K Awardees Panel

September 12, 2018

12:00 – 2:00

Location: Education 2 North, Rm 1103

Faculty Experts: Sarah Borengasser, Assistant Professor, School of Medicine; Heather Coates, Assistant Professor, College of Nursing; & Danielle Soranno, Assistant Professor, School of Medicine

The mentored NIH Research Career Development Award or K Award is unique among NIH grants. Successful candidates not only have to propose an excellent research plan but also have to show that they need mentoring and that they have the potential to be independent investigators. Join us to better understand the NIH K Awards and hear from recent awardees of the K01, K99, and K08.

Denver: Academic v. Grant Writing

September 27, 2018

12:00 – 2:00 pm

Location: CU Building, Rm 3301

Faculty Expert: Bud Talbot, Assistant Professor, Science Education and Laurel Hartley, Associate Professor, Biology

Research faculty need to write a lot, writing articles and grant proposals in particular. But, these are very different types of writing. The academic writing that goes into articles is often oriented toward other experts in the field. Proposal writing however requires the PI to pitch their idea and convince readers to invest in their project. In this seminar we will look at the difference between these types of writing, looking particularly at how you can switch gears from academic writing to grant writing. Additionally, we will learn from our faculty experts how to write in these different capacities collaboratively.

AMC: Scientific & Grant Writing Symposium

October 16, 2018

9:30 am – 1:30 pm

Location: Education 2 South, Rm 1102

Faculty Guest Experts: Spero Manson, Associate Dean for Research, Colorado School of Public Health; Jennifer Kemp, Director, Research Office, Department of Medicine; Garth Sundem, Science Writer, Cancer Center; and Naomi Nishi, Associate Director of ORDE

Science writing and grant writing are not usually considered synonymous with clear and compelling writing. This is usually because science and grant writing require engaging complex, and highly technical subject matter. But, it can be done. Join us for this symposium and hear from several professional science/grant writers on how to improve your craft.

Denver: New Faculty Symposium

October 24, 2018

12:00 – 2:00 pm

Location: Student Commons, Rm 1401

Faculty Expert: Bob Damrauer, Associate Vice Chancellor, Office of Research Services

Early Career Investigators often feel a bit isolated from the research community on a new campus. This new faculty symposium is an opportunity to familiarize yourself with the CU Denver research community and introduce yourself and your work. You also will learn more about all of the research processes and resources available to you.

AMC: Know Your Agency: American Diabetes Association

November 6, 2018

12:00 – 1:30

Location: Education 2 North, Rm 1107

Faculty Expert: Jane Reusch, Professor, School of Medicine

In the Know Your Agency Lunches, we feature a specific agency and ask either an investigator funded by the agency or an agency insider to give an overview of the agency and offer some of the nuances that might not be readily available on the website or program announcement. These lunches also offer an opportunity for investigators interested in applying to the agency the chance to ask questions of someone more experienced with the agency.

Denver: Know Your Agency: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

November 7, 2018

12:00 – 1:30

Location: CU Building, Rm 490

Faculty Expert: Shale Wong, Professor, School of Medicine

In the Know Your Agency Lunches, we feature a specific agency and ask either an investigator funded by the agency or an agency insider to give an overview of the agency and offer some of the nuances that might not be readily available on the website or program announcement. These lunches also offer an opportunity for investigators interested in applying to the agency the chance to ask questions of someone more experienced with the agency.

Understanding Private Foundations

In the midst of a competitive federal grants climate, researchers are wise to diversify their funding portfolios. However, the first challenge researchers face in considering private foundations, especially if you're used to going after R01s at NIH, is setting your sights quite a bit lower in terms of dollar amount.

Besides smaller funds, private foundation generally have the following attributes:

• They are unique and differentiated from one another in terms of mission, approach, cause, etc.
• They do not want to fund projects that are fund-able by federal or other public sources
• They want to fund projects that are innovative or even risky
• They want to fund projects that will further their specific cause
• They are sometimes a good place to find seed funding (when they see themselves as partners with government or institutional funders)

Susan M. Fitzpatrick and M. Bren Dolezalick expand on these attributes in their book chapter: Diversifying Your Portfolio: The Role of Private Funders in Writing Successful Grant Proposals: From the Top Down and Bottom Up.

In his book, The "How To" Grant Manual, David G. Bauer differentiates private foundations into four basic types:

National General Purpose: These organizations fund projects across the nation and are looking for research that will have an impact on a broad scale.  An example would be the Rockefeller Foundation.

Special Purpose: These define the scope of research they will fund much more narrowly and generally focus on one target area. An example would be the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (focused on American Health Care).

Community: These foundations focus on issues or areas of focus that are important to a particular region or community.  An example would be The Denver Foundation.

Family: These foundations are often created as memorials by a family and the projects they fund must be in line with the family's goals and ideologies.

Clearly, you want to understand the type of foundation that will be a good fit for your research based on the foundation's goals and your own.  But, private funding can serve as a good source for supplementary funding or initial funding as a seed grant.

For CU faculty, oftentimes you need to work with the Office of Advancement or through the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research when pursuing private foundation grants so that the university communications are coordinated and consistent, so be sure to check on the appropriate processes when pursuing a private foundation grant.

Resources:
Diversifying Your Portfolio: The Role of Private Funders
What is a private foundation?

Don't N/A Yourself Out of a Grant

Agency guidelines for grant proposals often feel tedious. In fact, if they don't feel tedious, you better go back and read the guidelines again to make sure you're not missing the tedious requirements. However, I've noticed in proposals I review how often PIs respond N/A or "not applicable" to different guideline prompts.

Now, in some situations, the prompt or question does not apply to you and thus an N/A response is appropriate, but be cautious when you're responding to a guideline and saying it is not applicable to you. First, make sure that what you're responding to really isn't applicable to you. If the prompt asks what grant proposals you have pending, you can pretty quickly determine if it's N/A. But, if the question is asking about future grant submission plans, you probably don't want to respond with N/A, because you should be continuing to apply for grants. Showing the agency your future grant plans gives them confidence that your work will continue, that it's going somewhere.

Even if you think that your response to a prompt is N/A, maybe using N/A is still not your best strategy. Grant proposals are so limiting in terms of sharing your ideas, so when considering your response to each prompt, see if there is an opportunity to further your case rather than saying N/A. If you're responding to a question about IRB approval, and your research doesn't use human subjects, perhaps use the space to reiterate your methods and show rigor, while assuring reviewers that your work does not use human subjects or that you've already been assessed and received approval from the IRB. Another area that I see rife with N/As is in response to data management prompts. Even if you think your project won't be data heavy or you think that this prompt is in reference to big data projects, think again! Agencies want to know how you'll collect, protect, and maintain your data, whatever that data looks like or how much there is.

Another "easy out" that is often used in grant proposals is boilerplates. Why should you re-create the wheel when responding to facilities questions or more general institutional questions? Well, there are a couple of reasons to not cut and paste. First, if you cut and paste boilerplate text into your proposal, it can sometimes flag your proposal for plagiarism with the agency when other proposals have used the same boilerplate. Second, remember, prompts are opportunities to further your case, so customize your responses to questions about your institution. Just use the boilerplate to inform you about the institution and facilities, but then re-write it to show how your institution is ideal for you and your work to be successful.

Resources:
Using Proposal Boilerplates: The Dos and Don'ts - proposalworks.com
Be Careful About Using Boilerplate in Grants - The Development Source

What to do in the final days of proposal development

The NSF CAREER grant proposal deadlines are coming up in July, along with deadlines at other agencies, and it got me thinking about what happens in the final days of proposal development. I've had several past blogs that chided you to start developing your proposal six months in advance. (See the ORDE proposal development timeline), but today I wanted to offer some tips for the final days of proposal development.

Continue work with your grants administration
Now, you should have been working with your grants administrator from the day you decided to submit a grant proposal, but in the final days, folks in grants administration take on a large load of work for your proposal, so make sure that you are in close communication and getting them everything that they need by when they need it.

Re-read the guidelines
Yes, you've read them multiple times, but remember not following even one of the guidelines set forth by an agency can be grounds for rejection. So, check through them one last time.

Use criteria as a checklist
Make sure that you have responded to all of the criteria on which your proposal will be reviewed. Use the same language that the call for proposals or the guidelines use so reviewers are clear that you're responding to what has been asked of you.

Secure all ancillary documents
Remember that letter you needed to include from your Department Chair in support of your application? Make sure you have all those extra documents on letterhead, signed, and scanned in. For some fellowships, letter-writers submit their letters directly to the agency, so check in with those folks to make sure that they were indeed submitted.

Have the proposal proofed
At the end of the day, even the best and most careful writers make mistakes, so arrange to have someone proof your final proposal. Proofing ensures that you have rid your proposal of errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, consistency, etc. You don't want to run the risk of a reviewer catching an error and thinking you were a bit sloppy!

Submit before the final hours
Remember, most applicants submit their proposals right at the deadline. This can get you into trouble if any of the systems at your institution or at the agency go down or even slow down. Don't put yourself or your colleagues in grants administration in the situation of sweating and crossing fingers as they try to submit your proposal. Submit the day before it's due!

Resources:
ORDE Timeline
ORDE Tips and Checklists

Proposal Checklist

Grant applications are like snowflakes; at first glance, they all seem to be the same thing, but when you look closer at those application guidelines, you can notice all of the small, unique details.

These details, though seemingly small, can have a large impact! For instance, did you know that approximately 60% of proposals aren't even reviewed because they are not a good fit for the agency or they didn't follow the guidelines?

To make sure that you don't become part of this statistic, ORDE is happy to share our revised proposal checklist. Below are some highlights from this list:

Watch font and size: It is oh so tempting to shrink your type size or select a font that is smaller than that prescribed, but don't do it! Follow all margin, spacing, font, and sizing to a T, including image and figure captions. Remember, reviewers are reading many proposals that follow the rules. Don't think they won't notice if you cheat a little bit to make space.

Adhere to the deadline: You want to make sure that you know the date and time the proposal is due, but also double check that you know what time zone they're operating in. Even once you have all those details locked into your calendar, try to get your proposal in a day early so you won't panic if the system isn't working or you get an error when you hit 'submit.'

Make sure you're eligible: Well before you start writing your proposal, double check that you are eligible for the grant. Things like citizenship requirements, years past terminal degree, or your institutional type can knock you out of the running altogether. Even if you think you're eligible, but you're not entirely sure about a requirement, call the agency to make sure that you're not only eligible but a desirable candidate for the grant. There's nothing worse than working hard on a grant that reviewers will quickly decide you're not a good fit for!

Ask for accompanying letters early: If you need letters of support or letters from consultants or other affiliates, ask for them as soon as possible. You won't do yourself any favors in annoying a letter writer by asking him/her to write a letter for you at the last minute. Also, offer to draft the letter for them. That way it's less work for the signatory, and you get a chance to get everything in the letter you think the reviewers will want to see.

It can be frustrating applying to a new agency when you've memorized your normal go-to agency's proposal guidelines, but since they are the ones funding you (hopefully), they get to make the rules. But, on the bright side, really knowing an agency's guidelines well gives you a better sense of the agency and what they're looking for, which will give you a competitive edge.

To see ORDE's full checklist, go here. The Proposal Checklist is the second item down.

Contacting Program Officers

Reaching out to Program Officers (POs) may seem like a simple thing to do, but as we've seen many researchers and scholars are hesitant. Robert Porter in his article, "Can we talk? Contacting Grant Program Officers," suggests that this hesitancy lies in academics being more used to the lack of relationships they have with journal editors.  It would, of course, be inappropriate to contact an editor to see what you could do to get your article published.

For these reasons, researchers sometimes think that it is cheating to reach out to agencies and their POs. Yet, in a poll of former NSF POs at CU, all responding POs emphasized the importance of PIs reaching out to make sure the grants they are developing are in line with the agency's priorities.

Given this importance, below are some tips from POs and research development professionals on initially reaching out to POs.

Start early
POs are busy people, but they get even busier as they approach grant deadlines or as we approach the end of the fiscal year, so make sure that you are preparing early and reaching out at a time when a PO isn't up to his or her ears in questions, requests, and grants.

Do your homework
Before you reach out to an agency in any form, make sure you know about that agency. Be familiar with their website, their mission, how they are organized, and who you should contact.  If you are responding to a program announcement (PA), make sure that you've read it several times.  Nothing makes you look unprepared as asking a question that is answered in a PA or the website.

Send an email
When you're ready, send an email to who you think is the appropriate PO.  Make the email short. Introduce yourself (are you an early career investigator? have you received an award from the agency previously?) and give a quick description of your project (3-5 sentences). Use your subject line to describe why you're reaching out and keep it short.  Something like "Scheduling phone call?" or "Request for feedback" let's the PO quickly know why you're contacting them. Lastly, make sure that there is a call-to-action in your email. This is usually a request for a brief phone call to discuss your project.

Send a one-pager
Some POs at some agencies are ready for you to send a one-pager in your first email, but if you're unsure about it, you can send the email outlined above, but you want to have that project description in your back pocket. One PI told us about her reaching out to a PO and discussing her project only for the PO to ask her to send along her one-pager. The PI spent the rest of the afternoon and night putting together a project description (she hadn't written it yet).

Schedule a call
Usually, when first emailing, you're trying to schedule a call. But, in doing that, you want to remember that although you are busy, the PO is also busy and you are the one that needs to be flexible. You're asking for their time after all.  Give them some times/days and ask if anything would work for a call.


Follow-up
If a week goes by and you haven't heard anything, send another brief email "checking in" on your last note. Be polite and friendly, refer to your previous message, and ask again to schedule a call. Even if a PO is slow to respond to your outreach, do not be slow to respond to them. When they ask for a one-pager, send it within 24 hours, and in your follow-ups, always thank them for their time and note next steps. Anything discussed or agreed to by phone, briefly restate via email. For instance, if the PO said they would put you in touch with another PO, in your follow-up email, say something to the effect of "Thank you so much for reaching out to Dr. X on my behalf; I look forward to following up with her."

I want to leave you with a caveat: there are no hard and fast rules to reaching out to PO's. You must adjust all of the advice above based on the agency you're reaching out to. When doing your homework on the agency, it's a good idea to find someone at your university who has worked with that agency before to give you some insight on their preferences. But, don't let the unknown keep you from reaching out.


Resources
Inside the mind of your Program Officer - Inside Philanthropy
What to say-and not say- to Program Officers - Chronicle of Higher Education

Be productive this summer

With the passing of Memorial Day, we are into summer! Don't blink, you might miss it. To be sure that you are productive this summer, here are some tips...

Set goals
Begin by identifying what you need to accomplish to feel like you were productive and to set yourself up for a highly productive year. Be sure to consider goals in terms of research projects, generating preliminary data, writing grant proposals, developing manuscripts for publications, and any teaching development activities.

Create a schedule
Next, create a schedule. You might want to start off just trying to write an hour a day and then gradually increase that to about three hours a day. Make sure that you stick to your schedule and find a place to work that you can focus. Once you have your schedule and your place, continue your routine to build your habits. I'm reminded of Steven King's habits of sitting in the same place every day, having a glass of water and taking a vitamin. He does these simple things ritually to let his mind and body know that it's time to write. Try building these sorts of habits.

If you miss a goal, let it go
Although these habits and repetitive scheduling can help you to be productive, it's important to not let it be the determiner of your success. For instance, if you're not able to meet a goal or not able to write for a full hour one day, let it go, and come back the next day. And, don't try to force yourself to make up for it by writing twice as much the next day, just let it go and carry on.

Think about planning for fall early
As you know, summer will be over quickly, so in the midst of all of your productivity, don't forget about your fall responsibilities. Plan your class prep in with your summer goals, so you don't face a rude awakening at the end of the summer, scrambling to get all your classes ready.

Resources:
Harness Your Clean Slate Moment - Katelyn Knox
Planning a Productive Summer - The Chronicle of Higher Education
No More Post-Summer Regret - InsideHigherEd