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
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Friday, October 19, 2018
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
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
Friday, October 12, 2018
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: 75th 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).
For more information on the ADA, see the links below
Resources:
Know Your Agency Brief: ADA - ORDE
Thursday, October 4, 2018
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)