Some agencies do not ask for full grant proposals right off the bat. They narrow down candidates by asking for PIs to submit a white paper on their project first. So, what's the difference? Isn't a white paper just a mini-proposal? Well, yes, it really is. Think of a white paper as an introductory sales pitch on your project. You're trying to generate enough interest and excitement in your reviewers that they want the follow-up. They want the full proposal to know more about what you're doing.
So, now you have the gist. Below are some tips to bear in mind when crafting your white paper.
Follow agency guidelines:
There are some normal formats for white papers (see the resources below), but as always, if the agency for which you're writing the white paper has a required or even suggested format, use that. Reviewers who come across unique formats, when their agency has guidelines, find it annoying, not creative.
Respond to the agency's needs:
You have your research and, if you're wise, you're writing many proposals to many agencies. Yet, some PIs are copying and pasting one proposal or one white paper from one submission to the next. This practice ignores what agencies say they're looking for and renders proposals less competitive. Before you apply, make sure you understand and can show the fit between the agency's need and your research in the white paper.
Write for a lay audience:
Even if you're sure that the agency to which you're applying has folks with top-notch expertise in your area, you can't be sure that those are the only people who will read and weigh-in on your white paper. And remember, writing for the lay-audience doesn't mean treating your reader like they're less intelligent; it instead means writing clearly and using plain language.
Use images:
Okay, I'll spare you the "picture is worth a thousand words" cliche this time (oh wait, I just did it anyway!) Remember, images like conceptual diagrams can serve as an aide to your reader and help them get a sense of your project quickly. And, well-used images can help your proposal be more memorable.
Even if you're not required to submit a white paper on your project by the agency you're eyeing, it's a good idea to write one up. You can use it as a concept paper to run an idea by a program officer to get feedback before you develop a full proposal.
Resources:
Grant Writing Tips: White Papers - Rochester Institute of Technology
Letters of Intent, Preproposals, WhitePapers, Requests for Information,Abstracts, and Logic Models: The Role ofthese Short Papers in Successful GrantApplications - NORDP
Monday, January 29, 2018
Friday, January 19, 2018
Timing is Everything
This week NPR interviewed Author, Daniel Pink, on his new book, When: the Scientific Secrets of Perfect Timing. Pink's research shows that most people follow a pattern where their peak time during the day is in the morning. They then fall into a slump or "trough" around the middle of the day and then come back up in a recovery period in the afternoon and evening.
What this means in terms of workflow is that we should do the work that demands focus, like grant writing, early in the day because that is when we are best able to do that sort of work. We should save work that is more administrative for the "trough" period, particularly right after lunch when, if you're like me, you're ready to take a nap under your desk, ala George Costanza from Seinfeld. In the afternoon you can return to some of the work that requires more focus or maybe schedule meetings.
Yet, even though these morning peak times are the norm, many people work on the wrong things at the wrong time. Many folks, including me, when they first get to their desk in the morning, turn on their computer and check their email. Given that many faculty members receive a large load of email, this can easily take up your whole morning, and thus your peak time.
Instead, if you rearrange your schedule to do your most important work or work that demands the most focus, and writing in particular, at the times that you're most effective, you'll be able to get more done and do it better.
Resources:
Daniel Pink's 'When' Shows the Importance of Timing Throughout Life - NPR
Science says you should do your most important work first thing in the morning - Drake Baer
What this means in terms of workflow is that we should do the work that demands focus, like grant writing, early in the day because that is when we are best able to do that sort of work. We should save work that is more administrative for the "trough" period, particularly right after lunch when, if you're like me, you're ready to take a nap under your desk, ala George Costanza from Seinfeld. In the afternoon you can return to some of the work that requires more focus or maybe schedule meetings.
Yet, even though these morning peak times are the norm, many people work on the wrong things at the wrong time. Many folks, including me, when they first get to their desk in the morning, turn on their computer and check their email. Given that many faculty members receive a large load of email, this can easily take up your whole morning, and thus your peak time.
Instead, if you rearrange your schedule to do your most important work or work that demands the most focus, and writing in particular, at the times that you're most effective, you'll be able to get more done and do it better.
Resources:
Daniel Pink's 'When' Shows the Importance of Timing Throughout Life - NPR
Science says you should do your most important work first thing in the morning - Drake Baer
Friday, January 12, 2018
Don't bomb your grant proposal with your budget
It's a particular kind of frustrating when you review a grant proposal that you really like until you get to the budget, and you're surprised (and not in a good way). Yet grant-seekers often put far less thought into their budget and make a series of very common errors. Also, important to note, is that many grant reviewers report looking at the budget before reading the body of the proposal, so when you think about how your application will be received when, from the reader's perspective, you're leading with a poor budget, you may be dead in the water.
Below, I share some of the top grant proposal budget bombs:
Padded budget:
Agency budgets are tight these days. Funders are trying to fund as much good research as they can with limited budgets, and in doing this, they often negotiate with PIs they want to fund to bring their budgets down. Unfortunately, some PIs, knowing this, decide to pad their budget upfront so that they have some easy places to trim. Or, sometimes, early-career researchers aren't all that sure where they'll need money so they overestimate the places that they do know they need funding so they can move things around later (which is not necessarily allowed). These are poor strategies because reviewers and Program Officers know generally how much things cost and what it takes to fund a project, so the budget padding will jump off the page when they look at the budget and reflect poorly on you.
Vague budget:
When you treat your budget as an afterthought, you may not do your homework to get exact costs, thinking "Oh, this equipment will be about $5,000, a flight will be about $400, and $50/day is a good per diem." Your guestimate may be in the right range, but a guestimated budget looks sloppy and will likely annoy reviewers and give them a reason to like your proposal less.
Miscalculated budget:
ORDE has a saying, "math is hard," but then again, so is being a faculty researcher, so we know you're up to the challenge! In all seriousness, it's amazing how many grants proposals I review internally where the PI has made a small error in arithmetic. So check your numbers and check them again. Nothing puts egg on your face like a miscalculated budget.
Misaligned budget:
Another common faux pas is the misaligned budget, where the project the PI is describing doesn't match up with the budget. This can happen when the PI needs money for something, equipment or funding for their GRA, to do one thing that doesn't make for a very exciting project, and so the PI finds a way to incorporate that funding need into a more exciting project, even though the project described doesn't need the budget item. Again, reviewers and Program Officers know what's up. They will see through your plan and again it will reflect poorly on you and your project.
Unjustified budget:
Budget justification may seem like a nuisance, but it's really an opportunity for you to make clear connections between your project and your budget. You've described your project, you've named your budget, now it's time to explain the connections. Be sure to explain the obvious things, but definitely explain the less obvious things. This will keep your reviewers from thinking you've used any of the above bombs when you haven't. If they're questioning an expense in your budget, you explain it to them in the budget justification, which they will read to see if you've given that explanation.
Budgets and timelines are not the most exciting part of your grant proposal for you or for your reviewers, but it is where you show what kind of a project manager you'll be and prove to your reviewers that this well-thought, well-planned project will be successful.
Resources:
How to Prepare a Grant Proposal Budget for a Nonprofit - Heidi J. Kramer
The Who, What, Where, When and How of Grant Budgets - Grant Adviser
Below, I share some of the top grant proposal budget bombs:
Padded budget:
Agency budgets are tight these days. Funders are trying to fund as much good research as they can with limited budgets, and in doing this, they often negotiate with PIs they want to fund to bring their budgets down. Unfortunately, some PIs, knowing this, decide to pad their budget upfront so that they have some easy places to trim. Or, sometimes, early-career researchers aren't all that sure where they'll need money so they overestimate the places that they do know they need funding so they can move things around later (which is not necessarily allowed). These are poor strategies because reviewers and Program Officers know generally how much things cost and what it takes to fund a project, so the budget padding will jump off the page when they look at the budget and reflect poorly on you.
Vague budget:
When you treat your budget as an afterthought, you may not do your homework to get exact costs, thinking "Oh, this equipment will be about $5,000, a flight will be about $400, and $50/day is a good per diem." Your guestimate may be in the right range, but a guestimated budget looks sloppy and will likely annoy reviewers and give them a reason to like your proposal less.
Miscalculated budget:
ORDE has a saying, "math is hard," but then again, so is being a faculty researcher, so we know you're up to the challenge! In all seriousness, it's amazing how many grants proposals I review internally where the PI has made a small error in arithmetic. So check your numbers and check them again. Nothing puts egg on your face like a miscalculated budget.
Misaligned budget:
Another common faux pas is the misaligned budget, where the project the PI is describing doesn't match up with the budget. This can happen when the PI needs money for something, equipment or funding for their GRA, to do one thing that doesn't make for a very exciting project, and so the PI finds a way to incorporate that funding need into a more exciting project, even though the project described doesn't need the budget item. Again, reviewers and Program Officers know what's up. They will see through your plan and again it will reflect poorly on you and your project.
Unjustified budget:
Budget justification may seem like a nuisance, but it's really an opportunity for you to make clear connections between your project and your budget. You've described your project, you've named your budget, now it's time to explain the connections. Be sure to explain the obvious things, but definitely explain the less obvious things. This will keep your reviewers from thinking you've used any of the above bombs when you haven't. If they're questioning an expense in your budget, you explain it to them in the budget justification, which they will read to see if you've given that explanation.
Budgets and timelines are not the most exciting part of your grant proposal for you or for your reviewers, but it is where you show what kind of a project manager you'll be and prove to your reviewers that this well-thought, well-planned project will be successful.
Resources:
How to Prepare a Grant Proposal Budget for a Nonprofit - Heidi J. Kramer
The Who, What, Where, When and How of Grant Budgets - Grant Adviser
Friday, January 5, 2018
Top questions your reviewers have
Happy New Year! Our faculty researchers have been hard at work over the break, and now I'm reviewing several grant proposals to offer feedback from a technical writing perspective. I realize that when I'm reading proposals, I have a running inner dialogue in my head with the author. More than once, I've found myself asking a question aloud of my author. Sometimes if the author answers my question in the text immediately, the dialogue continues. If the author leaves me hanging, the dialogue turns into a monologue and usually more of a critique.
So, what are these questions that I frequently ask of my author? In the spirit of the New Year, I'll give these countdown style.
5. Why not turn this four-line sentence into two sentences (I had to re-read it three times!)
4. What is this diagram telling me?
3. Why is this project important/innovative?
2. Who will potentially benefit from this research and how will they benefit?
1. What does this acronym/abbreviation stand for? or What does this jargon mean?
Certainly, some of these questions are fundamental to making a case for your proposal, i.e., why is this project important? However, it's amazing how disruptive an ambiguous or hard-to-read diagram or an uninterpretable abbreviation can be for the reviewer. I find that it can almost rise to the level of distraction for me as a reader as excluding key points from the proposal.
Yet, all of these unanswered questions can be caught by your internal reviewers before you submit. So always make sure to line up colleagues, friends, and even your friendly university Technical Writer to help you catch these things before you submit!
Resources:
Six Critical Questions to Launch a Successful Grant Proposal - Robert Porter, PhD
11 Questions You Must Ask Before Your Write - Grant Training Center
So, what are these questions that I frequently ask of my author? In the spirit of the New Year, I'll give these countdown style.
5. Why not turn this four-line sentence into two sentences (I had to re-read it three times!)
4. What is this diagram telling me?
2. Who will potentially benefit from this research and how will they benefit?
1. What does this acronym/abbreviation stand for? or What does this jargon mean?
Certainly, some of these questions are fundamental to making a case for your proposal, i.e., why is this project important? However, it's amazing how disruptive an ambiguous or hard-to-read diagram or an uninterpretable abbreviation can be for the reviewer. I find that it can almost rise to the level of distraction for me as a reader as excluding key points from the proposal.
Yet, all of these unanswered questions can be caught by your internal reviewers before you submit. So always make sure to line up colleagues, friends, and even your friendly university Technical Writer to help you catch these things before you submit!
Resources:
Six Critical Questions to Launch a Successful Grant Proposal - Robert Porter, PhD
11 Questions You Must Ask Before Your Write - Grant Training Center
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)