ORDE Spring Seminars

As the fall semester is at its end, we're happy to announce our schedule for our spring 2020 faculty seminars. Below are the descriptions and CU Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus faculty can register here.

ORDE Spring 2020 Faculty Seminars

February

Denver: Grant Writing Symposium

February 4, 2020

9:30 – 1:00

Location: Lawrence St. Center, Rm 1150

Faculty Experts: Cathy Bodine, Associate Professor, Bioengineering; Brian Buma, Assistant Professor, Integrative Biology; Ron Tzur, Professor, Math Education

Grant writing is an essential skill for a successful and productive researcher, but one that takes work and experience to hone. Join us for our 2019 Denver Grant Writing Symposium and hear from seasoned researchers and grant writers on how to work with Program Officers, pitch your project for a grant, and get insights about the grant review process and what reviewers are looking for in your proposal. You’ll leave with best practices in grant writing, as well as resources to help you start your academic year off on the right foot!

AMC: NIH K Award Grant Planning Seminar

February 26, 2020

12:00 – 3:00 pm

Location: Strauss Health Sciences Library, Reading Room

Faculty Experts: Jose Castillo-Mancilla, Associate Professor, School of Medicine; Amy Feldman, Assistant Professor, School of Medicine; Vinay Kini, Assistant Professor, School of Medicine; Laura Wiley, Assistant Professor, School of Medicine; Yi Zhang, Postdoctoral Fellow, School of Medicine

Description: During this working seminar, you will learn about the NIH’s K award grant programs, as well as strategies for approaching these unique grants. You will learn tactics and experiences from past K awardees and have an opportunity to get feedback on your K plan from your peers and awardees.

March

Denver: Career Programs

March 3, 2020

12:00 – 2:00 pm

Location: CU Building, Rm 490

Faculty Experts: Mark Golkowski, Professor of Electrical Engineering; Amy Wachholtz, Associate Professor of Psychology

Description: During this seminar, you will learn about the NSF CAREER program and the NIH mentored-K programs, as well as strategies for approaching these unique grants. You will learn tactics and experiences from a past K and CAREER awardee.

AMC: Revising and Resubmitting your Grant Proposal

March 12, 2020

12:00 – 2:00

Location: Education 2 North (P28), Rm 1206

Faculty Experts: Jennifer Kemp, Director, Research Office, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine

Few things are as disappointing as not getting your grant proposal funded, but it’s important to remember that all of the most funded researchers have had many proposals declined. What makes them successful, though, is that they didn’t let those rejections stop them. They listened to their reviewers, worked with their Program Officer, went back to the drawing board, and resubmitted a better proposal. Join us for this seminar where a faculty expert will discuss the resubmission process and how to be successful through it.

April

Denver: NSF Review Process

April 8, 2020

12:00 – 2:00 pm

Location: Lawrence St. Center, Rm 745

Faculty Expert: Michael Bodhi Rogers, Professor, Physics

Putting together an NSF grant proposal is a major endeavor, but what happens once you hit the ‘send button’ on your proposal? Who looks at your proposal? What decisions do they make? What process does it go through? In this seminar, we will discuss the NSF proposal review processes and what it means for you as the PI as you prepare your proposals. We will hear from a seasoned NSF PI and Reviewer about their experiences with the NSF review process.

Denver: Grant Writing for the Layperson (Non-expert)

April 30, 2020

12:00 – 2:00 pm

Location: Student Commons Building, Rm 2000

Experts: Naomi Nishi, Associate Director of Educational Outreach, Office of Research Development and Education; Rachel Sturtz, Research Communications Specialist, Office of Research Services

Being an expert in your field means that you understand the complexities of your research better than anybody else. However, for many researchers, that means you also have a hard time explaining your research and its importance to anybody else. Being able to communicate to a non-expert audience is crucial both in terms of making your work relevant and informative to broader audiences and because the ability to explain your research at a basic level is crucial to good grant-writing. Although many assume that grant reviewers are also experts in the same field, at some agencies, non-experts are included on the review panel. Even if they aren’t, it doesn’t take much specialization for an expert reviewer to not fully grasp the project you’re proposing. Join us for this seminar to learn ways to relate your research to non-expert audiences.

May

AMC: Grant Writing for the Layperson (Non-Expert)

May 7, 2020

12:00 – 2:00 pm

Location: Education 2 North (P28), Rm 2302

Experts: Naomi Nishi, Associate Director of Educational Outreach, Office of Research Development and Education; Rachel Sturtz, Research Communications Specialist, Office of Research Services

Being an expert in your field means that you understand the complexities of your research better than anybody else. However, for many researchers, that means you also have a hard time explaining your research and its importance to anybody else. Being able to communicate to a non-expert audience is crucial both in terms of making your work relevant and informative to broader audiences and because the ability to explain your research at a basic level is crucial to good grant-writing. Although many assume that grant reviewers are also experts in the same field, at some agencies, non-experts are included on the review panel. Even if they aren’t, it doesn’t take much specialization for an expert reviewer to not fully grasp the project you’re proposing. Join us for this seminar to learn ways to relate your research to non-expert audiences.

Resources:
Spring Faculty Seminars - ORDE
Seminar Video Archive - ORDE

Giving Grantitude

With Thanksgiving last week and it being "Giving Tuesday" today, I thought it would be a good opportunity to blog about the opportunities for incorporating gratitude in grant development, or what I've coined, grantitude. Within fundraising offices, gratitude is an essential part of the equation. Annual Funds will hold thank-a-thons in their phone banks and in the major gift realm, there is a whole professional field focused on stewardship, or folks who are tasked with thanking donors and continuing to cultivate them toward other gifts.

Is this done because these institutions and professionals are just overwhelmed with gratitude? Well, not to be skeptical around Thanksgiving, but no, thank-a-thons and stewardship happen because they've been shown to generate more giving.

Now, it's true that fundraising is different from grant development, however, we can glean some strategies from fundraisers that are applicable.

Always say thank you
At the heart of stewardship is showing appreciation to anyone who gives you something. So, when you receive a grant of any kind, make sure to figure out where to give thanks and do it. Send a thank you note or email to a PO that worked with you in the process, or send a note of thanks to any folks in leadership positions at the agency that it would be appropriate to contact for a quick thanks. This is a nice thing to do and shows appreciation for those who spent time and ultimately money on you and your work, but on the strategic side, it allows you to stand out from your competition. How many researchers think about sending a thank you or showing gratitude for a grant? Probably, not a whole lot, so if you do it, it may give you an edge or at least get your name in front of people you want to know who you are.

Cultivate relationships
These thank yous are a part of continuing the relationship(s) you have with an agency. Chances are, your first grant is not the only one you'll ever try to get from a sponsor, so it makes sense to build your relationship. Aside from saying thank you, make sure you are a good steward of their money - get those pesky progress reports to your PO on time and follow-up with any requests or questions that a sponsor has. Being nice to work with may work to your benefit the next time you go to submit a grant application.

Show grantitude to all involved
Even though they don't have direct responsibility for your being funding, don't forget to show gratitude to reviewers. Now, I don't mean sending them thank you notes (you don't know who they are anyway). I'm saying that in any resubmissions, when responding to reviewer comments, show gratitude for their work in reviewing your proposal, and be gracious in your revisions and explanations. Don't be argumentative; it won't get you anywhere good.

This hopefully gives you few ideas on employing grantitude in your process. The resource below gives other related strategies. Have a happy thanksgiving and may the grant-makers continue to smile on you. :)

Resources
Grant Management - Stewardship - The Grant Helpers.com
8 Great Ways to Thank a Funder - grants edge

Tips for Early Career Faculty

Last week, I was invited to attend an Early Career Faculty workshop at the Association for the Study of Higher Education. We heard from panels of faculty who were recently tenured and from faculty who had been Full Professors for awhile. Here were some of the key points that I took away.

Tenure for the world
Certainly, if you're in a tenure track position, knowing your department's criteria for getting tenure and focusing on that is essential. You should know how your department views collaborations, particularly those that go outside your discipline. But besides knowing these criteria well and having a plan to meet them, have you thought about how your tenure might translate? If you don't plan to stay at your tenure-granting institution forever and especially if you're hoping to move to a more research-intensive institution in the future, senior scholars suggest that you not only hit the tenure criteria at your current institution, but go beyond it. Find out what tenure criteria looks like at aspirational institutions to make sure you get "tenure for the world," and have the flexibility that you may need/want in the future.

Have a writing strategy
When do you write best? Do you write every day? How do you get past writer's block? These are the questions that early career faculty often wrestle with. In the workshop, one senior scholar urged us to write every day - even if sometimes it's just 15 minutes - you should touch your work every day. He also suggested that to leave yourself crumbs for the next day. If you're in the flow, don't finalize the section you're working on, but set yourself up to finalize it the next time you write. This can get you into the groove faster when you pick back up. These are just some tidbits, but the point is, you want to make sure that you have a writing strategy for yourself to make sure you can stay productive!

Your relationship with your Chair is key
Your departmental Chair is very important for you and your career. They are the person who have a say in your teaching load, they can help protect you and your time from folks who are looking for volunteers, they can also be a great resource as you navigate your new institution. Take care to develop a good relationship with your Chair and seek their advice on things early and often!

Be thoughtful about service commitments
Many scholars suggest that the key to managing service commitments and requests is to learn to say "no." However, particularly if you're in a department with not many faculty or if your department is heavy on junior faculty, you'll realize that you can't say no to everything. Instead, be thoughtful about your service commitments. Choose service activities that are aligned with your research or with your teaching. This can allow you to double up on the outcomes of that service work.

Find colleagues to partner with
A couple of full professors at different institutions discussed the way that they leaned on each other as research partners as they went through the tenure process. Both had families with children and talked about how depending on what was going on in the other's life, they might take more of their workload for a season and then shift to the other person the next. They co-authored several pieces together and had an understanding about order of authors and were very transparent about their partnership to make sure that it was supportive and fair.

Resources:
From PhD to Professor - The Muse
The Professor is in: 4 Steps to a Strong Tenure File - Chronicle of Higher Ed

Resubmitting Your Proposal

At most agencies, resubmitted grants have a higher success rate than first-time grant submissions. For instance, the NIH reported that in 2015, their first-time submissions had a success rate around 13% and their resubmissions was closer to 33%! Yet many researchers are deterred from resubmitting when reviewer comments and critique are difficult to swallow. The most successfully funded researchers have usually received as many no's as they have yes's and often more. However, when you receive a "no," you have a decision to make. If you decide to resubmit, you want to move as quickly as you can to revise and resubmit.

As you consider resubmitting and what you might do in your resubmission to enhance your chances of success, consider the following questions and suggestions:

What level are the suggested changes?
Getting comments from reviewers that suggest you clarify a section of your grant or make minor changes to your methods are very different from comments that suggest a flawed hypothesis or a poor fit between your research goals with the agency's funding priorities. Determining if reviewers are excited about your project and whether changes you make can move you from a not funded to funded in the next iteration is key to deciding if you should revise and resubmit to the same agency.

Is there a better agency fit?
Sometimes in reading reviewer comments, you may get a sense that there is a fundamental disconnect between your project and the agency's mission or goals. If this is the case, you may want to begin to search for agencies whose mission might better align with your work.

Which comments hold water?
One of the most frustrating aspects of reviewer comments is when you get contradicting opinions or comments that seem out of left field. Despite initial reactions to comments, after you've taken a couple of days to mull them over, go back to your proposal and honestly weigh which comments can make your project better and which can't and why they can't.  For those that can help you improve, be grateful for them and begin incorporating them. For those that are not helpful, see if there are ways you can improve your proposal to make your decisions and line of thinking more clear.  Perhaps a reviewer misunderstood aspects of your proposal, which led to their questionable comment. Are there ways you can revise to avoid such confusion by future reviewers?

Must you respond to all comments?
Of course some of your reviewer comments will be good to respond to or incorporate into your grant resubmission, but the question of whether you need to respond to all comments depends on whether the agency to which you're submitting allows a response statement in your resubmission.  Agencies such as the NIH require an introduction to the grant that outlines your responses to your summary statement.  In  cases where you must respond directly, it's wise to respond to all of the comments, especially when you will have the same reviewers for your resubmission.  If, like at the NSF, all grants are considered new even if they are resubmissions, you needn't respond to each and every comment in your grant if it does not make sense to do so.

Should you talk with your Program Officer?
The answer to this question is almost always - Yes! But, with resubmissions, make sure that you're not angry or trying to defend yourself before you pick up the phone.  Once you're ready to have the conversation, do call/email your Program Officer.  Oftentimes, your Program Officer was in the room during the review of your grant and they can offer you some clarification, advise you on changes you're considering making, and even help you make the decision as to whether you should resubmit.

Don't forget, if you've done your homework and made sure your project is a good fit for the program you're applying to, you should likely resubmit with revisions. Bear in mind, the most successfully funded researchers have also received the most rejections!

Resources
Are you on the fence about whether to resubmit? - Michael Lauer, NIH
Resubmission of the Grant Proposal - Chapter from Writing Dissertation and Grant Proposals (Chasan-Taber, 2014)

Grant Horror Stories

Given that it is Halloween week, I thought I'd take the opportunity to regale you with a couple of horror stories from the grants world, along with a grant development moral... you're welcome! ;)

Dr. Warlock had been working on his National Bat and Spider Institute (NBSI) proposal for months. Along with his trusty grants administrator, they had crafted a research proposal that fit the program announcement like a glove. David, the school's grants administrator, had emailed Dr. Warlock asking him to have all of the final submissions materials to him two days before the proposal deadline. Dr. Warlock shrugged off David's suggestion. "Two days in advance," Dr. Warlock thought, "That's ridiculous!"

One week later, the day of the 5:00 deadline was upon them. Dr. Warlock sent David all of the final materials and headed over to David's office. As he turned the corner, he noticed that David was pale and looked like he'd seen a ghost. "What's wrong!?!" Dr. Warlock asked. "The system's d-d-doown!" sputtered David. "What!?! Let me have a look!" screeched Dr. Warlock, hastily shoving David away from his own computer. Warlock stared at the little hourglass that kept turning with no coveted receipt confirmation in sight.

It was David's turn to shove Dr. Warlock out of the way. "To Starbucks!" he shouted, ripping his laptop off its base. Once at Starbucks, Dr. Warlock glanced at his watch seeing there were mere minutes left till the deadline. David booted up, and hit the submit button in a flash. "It's working!" David said in a hushed tone. The two anxiously waited for the receipt confirmation, and finally it popped up on David's computer. As Dr. Warlock breathed a sigh of relief, his breath caught in his throat. There on the screen read, "Thank you for your submission to the NBSI, your proposal was received at 5:01."

Moral: Submit your proposal well in advance of the deadline.

Dr. Frankenstein was exhausted but feeling confident about her recently submitted CAREER award to the National Spells and Cauldrons Foundation (NSCF). This year was her year to receive this prestigious award from NSCF. As she was heading to her noon class, she ran into Naomi, her friendly research development colleague who had reviewed a draft of Dr. Frankenstein's grant proposal early on.

"It's submitted!" Frankenstein told Naomi. "Congratulations!" she beamed back. "Thanks, I feel so relieved!" "I'll bet," said Naomi. "Now, you remembered to title the proposal 'CAREER: Using Frog's Breath in Wart Removal,' right?" The color drained from Dr. Frankenstein's face, "Wait, what?" Naomi's face fell as well. "The NSCF requires that all CAREER proposals be titled starting with 'CAREER:'" Reading Dr. Frankenstein's face, Naomi offered, "Well, I'm sure we can change it! When's it due?"

"YESTERDAY!!!"

Moral: Follow the directions in the program guidelines.

Happy Halloween!!!

Grant Development Tips

Last week, we held our fifth annual Grant Writing Symposium out at the CU Anschutz Medical Campus. We learned a lot from seasoned researchers and grant writers, including Dr. Adit Ginde, Professor and Vice-Chair for Research in Emergency Medicine; Dr. Jennifer Kemp, Director of the Research Office for the Department of Medicine; and Dr. Andrew Thorburn, Professor and Chair of Pharmacology.

Below, are some of the key points made by these experts:

Begin your Specific Aims with your goal
Many Specific Aims pages begin by describing the problem they're trying to solve, which is not a bad approach but don't forget to state the goal of your project right at the outset. Your reviewers will start reading your proposal wondering what is the objective of this research, so tell them right away within the first one or two sentences of your Specific Aims.

Your Specific Aims page can make or break your proposal
Most reviewers report that they pretty much know which proposals they like after reading the Specific Aims page. As Dr. Kemp explained, this means that you need to convince them of your project's merits within this crucial page. If you haven't convinced them in the Specific Aims, chances are you won't change their mind later on.

The most common error in the Specific Aims is not showing you're the right person for the job
Too often, PIs get focused on describing their project and the problem it's tackling in the Specific Aims. While this is important to convey, oftentimes PIs don't also show that they are the best-positioned researcher to do the project. Dr. Kemp urged PIs to show how you're the best person to conduct the research your describing.

Seek out Program Officers at scientific and professional meetings
Some POs are difficult to get ahold of. Dr. Ginde suggested seeking out POs at professional meetings. He also recommended finding a PI who already has a relationship with a PO and to ask that PI for an introduction.

Be sure to contact Program Officers after you receive your reviews
PIs often recognize the value of talking to POs as they are developing their proposals to make sure they're a good fit, but sometimes if their proposals are not funded, they throw up their hands. Not getting a grant can feel defeating, but after you've had some time to get over your frustration and have read your reviews with a clear head, reach out to your PO to see if they can give you additional insight into the review conversation. The PO can advise you as to what might make your proposal more competitive for the next go-round.

Reviewers don't want to be reading your proposal in the first place
When we asked Dr. Thorburn, what do reviewers really want, he replied that they don't want to be reading your grant proposal. He explained that reviewers are reading many proposals on top of all their other responsibilities. They might be reading it on the weekend when they'd rather be doing a multitude of other things. Having said that, Dr. Thorburn recommended writing clearly to make sure the process isn't more agonizing than it may be already.

There's no way you can make a grant proposal too simple
Speaking to Dr. Thorburn's last point, he emphasized that when it comes to grant writing, it's impossible to make your proposal too simple or too easy to read. This is why you should not hesitate to rid your proposal of as much jargon as possible and always connect the dots for your reviewer. Never let the reviewer guess at what you're doing or why it's important - tell them clearly, early on, and often throughout the proposal.

Resources:
Can We Talk? Contacting Program Officers - Robert Porter
What do Reviewers Really Want Anyway? - Robert Porter

Applying to the DoD

A couple of weeks ago, we hosted a Know Your Agency lunch on the DoD, hosting Dr. Travis Taylor of Strategic Marketing Innovations (SMI), focusing largely on health research funding opportunities. Dr. Taylor has previously worked with the DoD and the NIH and offered great insight into how to apply to the DoD. Here were some of his key points!

• The DoD is focused on the Warfighter: The DoD includes all of the military branches and it funds research that benefits troops in the field, not veterans (that's the VA). So any health research you propose to the DoD must clearly focus on this population.

• The DoD is most interested in a product that works and is safe: They're less likely to fund exploratory research. They want research that is further along and close to implementation.

• Focus on the immediate benefits: The DoD is most interested in funding research where they will see benefits for troops very quickly.

• Attend conferences where DoD Program Officers will be: Make connections/discuss your research with POs to get advice and better hone your research for their needs.

• Write your proposal for a non-expert audience: Certain branches of the DoD will include patients or non-expert stakeholders in their review process, so you need to write your proposal for a lay audience.

The DoD is a unique funder with a unique mission and approach to research, so it can be a big shift for researchers who are used to applying to the NIH or other federal agencies. However, once you've figured out how to talk to the DoD and had some success getting funding, it gets easier to apply to and be funded by them.

Resources:
Grants.gov: Department of Defense
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs
Coming soon: Video of the DoD talk

Tips for Applying for an NIH K

Last week, ORDE hosted an NIH K Panel seminar. K awards are NIH's mentored career development awards. Our panel was made up of K01, K23, and K99 awardees. As the discussion unfolded, the panel offered several good nuggets for those who are considering applying for a K award.

• Apply for smaller funding first: Work your way up; try applying for smaller grants to build your success.
• Write your application so it's broadly understandable: Make sure all the reviewers will get your research (some may not be experts in your area).
• Have a member of your mentoring team that specializes in every part of your project: For every method, technique, and approach have a known expert on your mentoring team.
• Start applying for your R award three years into your K: Don't wait till you're out of money to look for your next grant. Some K awards will even let you keep your K funding when you get your R.
• Show that your career path is different from your mentor's: Make sure your reviewers know that you and your research are unique and innovative.
• Look up your study section and guess who will be your primary reviewer and cite them: The NIH posts their study section members; you can figure out who will likely be assigned to be primary on your application so cater your writing to them.
• Include a timeline visual: It's not enough to write out your plan; put together a visual that shows your timeline.
• The best time to apply for a grant is when you've just published something great: Once you've published, the field will be abuzz with talk about your great work, so seize on that!

Always remember that the K grants are meant to take an early career scholar with lots of potential and provide them the mentoring and career development they need to be an independent researcher, which for the NIH means you are competitive for an R01 or like award. In all things, show them that you have that potential and that you will be successful with a little help from your K!

Resources:

Research Career Development Awards (K kiosk) - NIH

Ins and Outs of NIH Career Development Awards - Gregory Sempowski (Duke)

Overcoming Writer's Block

I'll be honest, I didn't feel like writing the blog today. I couldn't think of something new to write about. I had, not only writer's block, but I also had idea block or maybe thinker's block? As I mulled over what to write about it, dreading how all my ideas would just be things I've written about, I thought, "How do I get over this writer's block?" And, eureka! I have my blog topic. So, without further adieu, here are five ways to overcome writer's or thinker's block.

1. Just start writing
I realize that this is the most annoying tip, but for me, it's always the most useful. My writer's block often stems from my dreading the task of writing. I may not be sure I know what I want to write or my angle or I've been mulling things over a bit too long and have now moved into procrastination mode. In these situations, the best way out is often to just sit down and start writing. Whether you're free-writing or putting together an outline, just the act of writing can allow the wheels to start turning and the writing to start flowing.

2. Find an accountability partner
Many faculty I know, particularly early-career faculty find that having a thought partner or a writing group can give them the accountability they need to get writing. Having deadlines for yourself sometimes just can't get you writing, but sometimes being accountable to a colleague or colleagues is enough to get you to keep at it!

3. Read
There are those times when you are writing and you find yourself stuck or running out of steam. When this happens, sometimes you just need to do a bit more research to get yourself humming again. Sometimes finding more evidence for your work or even getting a sense of how others have structured their argument or developed their case can give you the fodder to keep you writing.

4. Take a walk
Sometimes staring at a screen when nothing is coming becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where the longer you sit there, the more lost or blocked you feel. Break this cycle by going for a walk or exercising. This can get your blood flowing, including to your brain. I've found that oftentimes I'm able to solve a puzzle, make a decision, or plan out a proposal or manuscript when I'm walking or running around.

5. Start drawing
When you're not sure where to go in your writing, sometimes creating an outline can help, and if you're not quite ready to outline, perhaps you're ready to start drawing. Create a mind map or conceptual diagram of your argument or all the pieces you can think of. This can help you decide what you want to include and the order in which you want to tackle all your points.

There is a theme that connects all of these strategies - the idea of switching it up. When you're able to look at a problem or your writer's block from a different situation, sometimes it helps you to see around it!

Resources:
How to Overcome Writer's Block - Goins, Writer
How to Overcome Writer's Block - reedsy

Making your writing easy to read

Your research is likely complex and/or complicated. But, when it comes to grant proposals, you need to write about your research simply. This can sometimes feel like an insurmountable feat. This blog today won't give you a silver bullet for boiling down your research, but I thought it would be useful to offer you some simple writing strategies that can aid you in making your writing easier to read.

Use white space: In grant proposals, everyone struggles with how to fit everything in and it's oh so tempting to move those margins and cut the white space from between your paragraphs to get in all those valuable words! But, there is a cost. Documents without white space are much harder to read and follow. So, always consider your reviewer and making it easy on them before you start filling every blank space on the page.

Don't justify the right margin: Many faculty hate this one; they just love to have a nice clean margin on the right as well as the left. However, research has shown that it's harder to read writing that is right-justified. Don't believe me? Try it yourself. Print out two copies of someone else's Project Overview or Specific Aims, one copy right-justified and the other with a jagged edge. See which one is easier to read/follow.

Break up long sentences: I always get annoyed when I'm writing and Word starts underlining sentences that it deems have gotten too long. Often, on further investigation, I realize that I have one run-on sentence that fills an entire paragraph. Oops! So, use the annoying Word cues to break up those long, sometimes slightly rambling thoughts.

Use headings: Headings are essential to orienting your reviewer to what they're going to be reading about in a particular section. But, they also help your reviewer navigate your proposal, particularly if they're jumping around the document.

Tell them before you tell them: Along with using clear and consistent headings, it is also helpful to preface your work with a few sentences that orient your reviewer to what you're going to describe. This will make it easier for them to follow your thoughts throughout a section.

Use images: Showing people instead of telling them something usually makes it easier to grasp, so if at any point you can create a clear and understandable figure or chart to demonstrate what you're saying, by all means, do it!

Pull out jargon: We've all had the experience where we're reading along and we come to an abbreviation, acronym, or term that we don't recognize. And if our author doesn't let us in on the definition, we will remain lost and without a crucial piece of the puzzle. To address this, try to replace jargon with more common language, and if you have to use technical terminology, define it upfront and use it consistently.

These relatively simple tactics are not a silver bullet, but they are fairly easy to implement to make your writing easier to read. So, try them out in your next proposal. Your reviewers will thank you for it!

Resources:
11 Smart Tips for Brilliant Writing - Dean Rieck
Improve the Readability of Your Writing in 60 Seconds - The Readable Blog

Crafting Your Research Agenda

If you're a researcher, sooner or later, you'll feel the need to craft a research agenda. You may be asked to submit your research agenda when applying for faculty or PostDoc jobs, but even if you're not, at some point you will need to articulate who you are as a researcher and where you're going. So, even if you don't have to have a research agenda right now, it's better to have one sooner than later.

So, what is a research agenda? Simple - it's your plan for your research, the trajectory for your anticipated projects, grants, and publications. But, it's not just a list or timeline for these items. Rather, it's a comprehensive document that outlines your focus area(s) as a researcher, including research questions and goals and how these all fit together to define you as a researcher. Sometimes, if a research agenda is requested of you, the inquirer is looking for a two-page summary or sometimes a 10-page comprehensive description.

But regardless of whether someone has asked for it, it's wise for you to create a written research agenda to help you clarify your research goals and plans and to help you keep your eye on the prize. As you've likely noticed, the research world is full of opportunities and many of them look great, but saying yes to too many disparate research opportunities can leave you with a body of work that doesn't make sense to anyone besides you. So, use your research agenda to help you know what to say 'yes' to.

When putting your research agenda together, below are some tips:

• Identify one-three strands in your research: When outlining your research agenda, you want to identify at least one solid research focus, but no more than three. Some researchers suggest that you have at least one of your research foci be dependable where it's easy to see how you can succeed at it. A second research focus might be a bit more high risk.
• Integrate: If you have more than one research focus, you need to clearly justify how all these pieces fit together. Why does research focus #1 bolster your work in research focus #2? You have to do the work to make sense of yourself as a researcher to your research community.
• Demonstrate your expertise: It's not enough to show that you have great research ideas or that your planned research fills a much-needed niche, you must also show your track record in the area so that anyone reading your research agenda can have confidence that you will be successful.
• Dream a little: Do not forget in your research agenda to look far enough into your research future that you can dream a little. What will you have accomplished in 10 years? Share your vision for yourself and your research in your agenda.

Research agendas are great communication tools that allow others to better understand what research is all about. But, they can also serve as your guide, as you navigate your research goals.

Resources
The role and purpose of a research agenda - Higher Ed Professor
Writing the Research Plan for Your Academic Job Application - Jason G. Gillmore

Starting off as a Research Professor

As we get close to the start of another academic year and new faculty orientations are upon us, I thought I'd offer some advice for brand new and returning early career investigators based on that suggested by seasoned faculty researchers. From our vantage point in ORDE, we often see new faculty set aside their research for the first year, which then sometimes slides into continued avoidance in the second year. This is understandable, given the loads that most faculty are carrying, but it's also dangerous to set aside your research for that long. So, to help you to focus in on your research as soon as possible, we offer the following tips.

Do what counts:
There are so many opportunities as a new faculty member that it can get overwhelming. So, spend your time doing what really counts. Perform mini ROI (return on investment) assessments on all tasks and ask yourself, is this where my time is best spent. Is this going to get me where I need to be for tenure and to be the kind of researcher I want to be in 5-10 years?

Be ready to say no:
Along these same lines as doing what counts, researchers must get used to saying no. Inevitably, you'll be asked to be on a slew of committees. And, yes, service is necessary, but as a new tenured faculty and budding researcher, you want to say no to most of these requests. Now, you can be apologetic and cordial while saying no, but say no, nonetheless. Folks will understand you're trying to protect your time and focus on your research and writing early on.

Develop a mentoring network:
Because you may feel overwhelmed, you want to have a network to support you. Identify what kind of support and guidance would be most helpful. Then, be on the lookout for people who fit that bill. And make a point to invite multiple people to be part of your mentoring network instead of looking for one person to be everything.

Meet the right people:
If you're at a new institution, figure out who the major players are. Who has money? Who has influence? Seek them out and introduce yourself. Look for opportunities to invite them to lunch. Perhaps these folks become part of your support/mentor network.

Be kind to yourself:
Most faculty researchers don't accomplish what they set out to in the first year or two. But, beating yourself up about not meeting goals that may have been unrealistic doesn't help your productivity. Take time to reflect on your goals and if they are realistic. Forgive yourself for goals not reached and move on. Certainly feeling bad about your work will not help you to be any more productive.

Lastly, always remember that your friendly Office of Research Development and Education (ORDE) and Office of Research Services are here to support you so don't hesitate to reach out!

Resources:
I survived year 1 as a tenured professor, and you can too! - Tenure, she wrote
Advice for new assistant professors - Chris Blattman
Advice for your first year on the tenure track - Karen Kelsky

Funding for New Investigators

I'm happy to announce that we've just released our updated e-book featuring grant programs for new and early career investigators. Find the book here!

WHAT SHOULD I DO BEFORE I APPLY?
Below are four questions you'll want to answer before applying 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.

Resource:
Research Funding Opportunities for New Investigators - ORDE

2019 Fall ORDE Seminars

Well, although I'm still in denial, summer is ending, and it's time to gear up and focus on the research you're doing and planning for in the 2019-2020 academic year. As you start to consider what grants you want to go after to keep your research moving, please join us for our seminars to make you more competitive for those grants. Here's what's coming up!

Anschutz Medical Campus (AMC): NIH K Awardees Panel

September 17, 2019

12:00 – 2:00

Faculty Experts: Karen Hampanda, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Community and Behavioral Health; Jean Mulcahy Levy, Assistant Professor, School of Medicine; Minghua Tang, 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: Know Your Agency Lunch: Department of Education

September 25, 2019

12:00 – 1:30

Faculty Experts: Ritu Chopra, Executive Director, The Paraprofessional Research and Resource Center & Project Director, NxtGEN Teachers, Teacher Quality Partnerships Project; Barbara Seidl, Associate Dean of Teacher Education and Undergraduate Experiences, School of Education and Human Development

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.

AMC: Know Your Agency Lunch: DOD

October 4, 2019

12:00 – 2:00 pm

Faculty Experts: Vikhyat Bebarta, Professor of Emergency Medicine; J. David Beckham, Associate Professor of Medicine, Neurology, & Immunology/Microbiology; Joe Larsen, Senior Vice President for Life Science, Strategic Marketing Innovations (SMI), Inc.; Rosemary Rochford, Professor of Immunology & Microbiology

In partnership with the CU Office of Government Relations, in this Know Your Agency Lunch, we will hear from Dr. Joe Larsen on how to approach the Department of Defense (DoD) and apply for funding. We will then hear from a panel of faculty who have been successfully funded by the DoD to learn more about the unique aspects of this funder.

AMC: Grant Writing Symposium

October 17, 2019

9:30 – 1:00

Faculty Experts: Jennifer Kemp, Director, Research Office, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine; Andrew Thorburn, Chair, Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine; Adit Ginde, Professor and Vice Chair for Research, Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine

Grant writing is an essential skill for a successful and productive researcher, but one that takes work and experience to hone. Join us for our 2019 Grant Writing Symposium and hear from seasoned researchers and grant writers on how to work with Program Officers, write your Specific Aims, and get insights about the review process and what reviewers are looking for in your grant. You’ll leave with best practices in grant writing, as well as resources to help you start your academic year off on the right foot!

Denver: Grant Writing Symposium

October 30, 2019

9:30 – 1:00

Faculty Experts: Cathy Bodine, Associate Professor, Dept of Bioengineering and the CU School of Medicine Center for Bioengineering; Brian Buma, Assistant Professor, Integrative Biology; Ron Tzur, Professor, Math Education

Grant writing is an essential skill for a successful and productive researcher, but one that takes work and experience to hone. Join us for our 2019 Denver Grant Writing Symposium and hear from seasoned researchers and grant writers on how to work with Program Officers, pitch your project for a grant, and get insights about the grant review process and what reviewers are looking for in your proposal. You’ll leave with best practices in grant writing, as well as resources to help you start your academic year off on the right foot!

Denver: Revising and Resubmitting your Grant Proposal

November 5, 2019

12:00 – 2:00

Faculty Experts: Jean Scandlyn, Clinical Associate Professor, Health and Behavioral Sciences and Anthropology

Few things are as disappointing as not getting your grant proposal funded, but it’s important to remember that all of the most funded researchers have had many proposals declined. What makes them successful, though, is that they didn’t let those rejections stop them. They listened to their reviewers, worked with their Program Officer, went back to the drawing board, and resubmitted a better proposal. Join us for this seminar where a faculty expert will discuss the resubmission process and how to be successful through it.

Please register on our website!

Resources:

ORDE seminar registration

ORDE seminar video archive

Justifying Your Budget

The body of your research proposal is meant to demonstrate that your project is sorely needed and an innovative approach to research. It's also meant to position you, the PI, as the quintessential researcher to pull it off. But, the budget and budget justification are where you build credibility and confidence in your reviewers and the agency that you will be able to pull this off. It's where you show that you're also the quintessential project manager.

Follow the rules:
Sponsors usually outline the format they want to see in your budget justification. Be sure to read through your grant application guide and to include all the information the sponsor asks for in the budget justification. The sponsor and your institution also have rules around allowable costs. Be sure to check that all of your budget items are allowed, or they'll be a no-go and make it look like you didn't do your homework if unallowable costs slip through in your submission.

Connect your budget with goals:
If your budget doesn't outline and prioritize costs that directly allow you to meet your project goals, that is a red flag. Make sure that your budget reflects your project and what you've said was important and then make those links between goals and costs in your budget justification.

Stick to your budget order:
Again, check your application guide for the format for your budget and budget justification and follow those rules to a T. But, in addition to that, if the guidelines do not offer you rules on order of budget and budget justification, make sure to follow the same order in both. This makes it easy for your reviewers to go back and forth between budget and budget justification.

Elaborate on costs that may not be clear:
If there are items in your budget where your need for them isn't abundantly clear, take extra time to communicate your need and/or describe the items. Or, if you need equipment at a certain quality level that costs more than other versions, you may want to explain in your justification why you need the version you need.

Make sure all costs are reasonable:
It's true that oftentimes when you're awarded a grant, it comes with a budget cut in a negotiation with your Program Officer. This reality can make it tempting for PIs to pad their budget to soften the blow when they're cut. But, resist padding! The truth is that your budget and budget justification are a reflection of you as a project manager and if your budget isn't frugal, that will reflect on you. Most reviewers and POs know when something is padding, so it's more likely your budget will get cut more significantly when they see it.

The budget justification is certainly not an exciting part of your proposal, but it is still essential in showing your competence and skill-level, so make it clear and informative!

Resources:
Grant Writing: How to Build Credibility with Your Budget Narrative - Grants.gov
Budget Justifications - University of California, Irvine

Creating a timeline for your grant proposal

Starting the application process for a new grant can be daunting. There are so many rules, requests, and criteria to wrap your head around, it can be tempting to set it all aside and get back to it a little closer to the deadline, but resist that urge! ORDE recommends that PIs spend six months developing their project and then their proposal. So, usually, you do not have time to waste!

So, instead of giving in to a mild panic attack at the thought of beginning a grant proposal, consider using the following solid steps to get you started.

Create a timeline and work plan:
Once you've found the deadline and requirements for a grant application, create a timeline. Mark the deadline on your calendar and prepare to have the application finished a week ahead of time. Then work back week by week. When do you need to get a polished draft to your internal reviewers? How long will it take you to revise? When will you have each section drafted in enough time to set it aside and then come back to it with fresh eyes? Putting together this timeline and work plan can help you stay realistic about what you need to accomplish when and can help you chop up the seemingly insurmountable proposal into smaller, manageable tasks.

Read everything you can find:
When you've read the program announcement and guidelines for the proposal, go back and read them again. Then start reading everything else available. Go through the sponsor's website. Read the abstracts of past funded projects. Read the sponsor's strategic plan. Read the FAQ page. Read their "tips for success" page. Watch the old webcast they've made available to you. Then, go back and read the program announcement and guidelines again. Also, consider reaching out to past funded PIs and ask them if they're willing to share their proposal.

Create a proposal template:
Before you start to write, it's a good idea to go through the program announcement and guidelines and pull out the requirements and/or criteria in the call and to make those the sections of your project description. Oftentimes, when reading a call, you find yourself going through a series of requirements they want you to address, whether this list is a series, separated by commas or a bulleted list. The sponsor is telling you what they want you to respond to in your proposal and what they'll be looking for. So, take the hint and format your project description to respond to requests explicitly.

Secure letter writers and internal reviewers:
Usually, grant applications include requirements of letters of support or something like it. Identify what the sponsor wants in these letters, who they want them to be from, and identify your letter-writers as soon as possible. Reach out to them to make sure they're willing to write a letter. Offer to draft the letter for them that they can revise.

In addition to contacting letter writers, you also want to secure internal reviewers. Folks in your discipline or even laypeople who can give you valuable feedback on a polished draft of your proposal. ORDE suggests that you have three people review your grant, including one layperson and two people in your field. Ask these folks early if they will review your proposal and agree on a timeline for this review, i.e., when will you send them a draft and when can they get feedback back to you.

If you bear in mind these things to do as you get started applying for a grant, it can help you to get past that feeling of being overwhelmed and set you up for success right away!

Resources:
ORDE Proposal Development Timeline
On the art of writing proposals - Adam Przeworski and Frank Salomon

Funding Your Sabbatical

Most faculty who take their first sabbatical do so right after they receive tenure. At CU, tenured faculty are eligible for a sabbatical after six years of service. Although it makes sense that faculty are given time to refresh right after a herculean effort to earn tenure, because it happens so close to the award of tenure, faculty are often ill-prepared for their sabbatical when it comes to funding.

At CU, faculty applying for sabbatical are eligible for one semester off at full pay or two semesters off at half-pay.  Many who plan to take off one academic year seek funding to help cover salary and other expenses.  Yet, many of the fellowships and funds designed for sabbaticals must have applications submitted at least a year in advance of funding. Thus, if faculty wait to look for and apply for sabbatical funding once they've received tenure, oftentimes they've missed out on some opportunities.

It may feel strange to be planning for your sabbatical when you're still in the throes of going up for tenure. But, considering that those you're competing with for sabbatical funding are likely in the same boat, planning ahead can give you an edge. Another consideration, if you are too pressed in pulling together your dossier for tenure review, is postponing your sabbatical for a semester or two to give you a chance to search and apply for funding to allow for a full sabbatical. Other sabbatical-planning faculty include more seasoned Associate Professors or Professors who are once again eligible, and sabbaticals can sneak up on these folks too.

Sabbatical funding can come in many different forms. Oftentimes, it is in the form of a fellowship or residency, allowing for you to get away from it all to do your work in a new space. Or, it can allow you to develop a new skill. Some sabbatical funding opportunities allow you to work at and/or with federal agency staff on new projects using their data and resources.

While many faculty going on sabbatical think about starting or writing a book, there are a limited number of opportunities that will fund you to do that outright. But, if you can make a case for a fellowship or the need to travel and/or collaborate in conjunction with a book project, there may be greater opportunity.

When it comes to sabbatical funding, the most important thing to remember is to start early, and probably even earlier than you think is early. To get started, use the link below to start digging through our updated e-book on Sabbatical funding!

Resources:
Sabbatical Funding e-book - ORDE
Five Steps to a Successful Sabbatical -  Science Careers

NIH Changing Program Announcement Usage

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) are streamlining methods for announcing specific research interests. They will be phasing out the use of program announcements (PAs), which often come with multiple flavors (e.g., Clinical Trial Allowed/Not Allowed, R01, R03, R21), replacing them with Notices of Special Interest (wait for it, NOSI). ​Requests for Applications (RFAs), program announcements with special receipt/referral/review considerations (PARs) and program announcements with set-aside funds (PASs) will continue to be used. NOSIs will highlight specific research topics of interest, and then typically direct applicants to one or more parent announcements. When applying through a NOSI (I'm loving this acronym), it is critical that the notice number be included in the Agency Routing Identifier field to allow NIH to assign and track these applications appropriately.

This welcome news from the NIH creates a much simpler and intuitive for accessing and applying to the appropriate mechanism at the NIH.

Resources:
NIH Notices of Special Interest

The NSF Merit Review Process

In May, the NSF released their 2017 Report on their Merit Review Process. Below I highlight some of the key elements of that report.

Overall, the NSF shows in this report that they've maintained a funding rate of what is currently 23% overall. This varies by directorate with the Geosciences holding the highest rate at 32% and the Engineering Directorate holding the lowest at 19%.

Monthly salary funding for PIs has continued to decline, sitting at an average of .7 months funded for single PIs and .63 months for multiple PIs. To put this in perspective, a decade ago in 2007, the NSF funded on average 1.37 and 1.27 months for single and multiple PIs, respectively.

At the NSF, the vast amount of proposals are reviewed by external reviewers with the exception being EAGER, RAPID, and RAISE proposals that the Program Directors use their discretion in funding. Otherwise, in FY 2017, 68% of proposals were reviewed by a panel only, 24% were reviewed ad hoc and a panel, and 4% were reviewed ad hoc only. A panel refers to a gathering of a small group of external researchers that discuss the merits of multiple proposals at a time. Ad hoc refers to when proposals are sent to external researchers, individually, where the reviewers never get together to discuss the proposals.

The core review criteria for every NSF proposal include intellectual merit understood as the contributions the research will make to its scientific field and broader impact, understood as the larger difference the research will make outside of its direct scientific field.

In terms of the overarching life cycle of grant proposals, along with the timeline, the NSF offers this image:

If you are looking at applying or re-applying to the NSF and want to get a better sense of the agency, I encourage you to review the 2017 report. Also, NSF offers grants conferences that can give you a leg up on applying to the NSF. The next conference is November 18-19 in Boston.

Resources:
Report on the National Science Foundation's Merit Review Process 2017
NSF Grants Conference Website

Crafting an Argument in Your Grant Proposal

Making a case in your grant proposal sounds easier than it is. And that's because the research you want to do is not based on one simple argument. Your next project stems from a whole complex background of knowledge and research and there are likely many arguments you could make for your research and all are sound!

So, how do you decide? First thing's first, get to know the agency you're applying to. What are their goals and how does your research help them achieve those goals? Secondly, take a look at who the reviewers are. Are they other researchers, community members, or other types of stakeholders? In understanding the agency and the type of person reading your proposal, you will be able to choose and craft the best argument for your proposal.

Once you know what argument you're focusing on and who you're writing for, you're ready to structure your argument, and here's a recommendation for structure:

Problem with hook:
First, give them a sense of how terrible the problem is that you're addressing. Use statistics to show how dire the situation is.

Cutting edge research:
Give them some context. What research has been done to address this problem so far?

Gap:
Describe what holes remain in the research that keep us from solving the urgent problem you've described.

Critical need:
Explain why the gap you've identified is so important for you to address. Why is it so important?

Project description:
Explain your project and how it is going to address the gap and meet the critical need you've identified.

Vision:
End by reminding reviewers what is possible and/or the great impact your research in this project and future projects will have on the field and in addressing major challenges.

This formula for building your argument not only includes the most crucial points that drive it home, but also follow a logical progression that is easy for reviewers to follow and digest. In writing your grant proposal, you want to guide your reviewer through your argument. Don't leave them stranded or headed down the wrong path. Lead them to your end destination of being confident that your project should be funded!

Resources:
Grant Proposals (or Give me the money!) - UNC Chapel Hill

Videos on NSF and P01/Center Grants

I'm happy to announce that we've now edited and uploaded all of our seminar videos from the Spring 2019 semester. See the last two seminars on the National Science Foundation and on Planning a P01 or Center Grant Proposal on our Vimeo site. Also, browse our other videos to see any you've missed!

National Science Foundation

Video Link

Faculty Experts: Martin Dunn, Dean, College of Engineering and Applied Science; Doris Kimbrough, Professor, Chemistry

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the premier federal funding agency for the Sciences. Join us for this seminar to learn about the NSF and their grants program. Seasoned experts will discuss the mission and organization of the NSF, their overarching grants criteria, their proposal structure, and tips for applying to the NSF.

How to plan for a P01 or Center Grant

Video Link

Faculty Experts: Cathy Bradley, Professor and Associate Dean of Research, Colorado School of Public Health; John Hokanson, Professor, Colorado School of Public Health; Jennifer Kemp, Director, Department of Medicine Research Office; Jon Samet, Dean, Colorado School of Public Health

P01 and Center grants are highly competitive and unique. It takes seasoned PIs, multiple great projects, integration, collaboration, and sustainability. This seminar is targeted for faculty interested in leading or being part of competitive P01 or center grant applications. You will hear from faculty experts on the demands of the P01/center grant proposal as well as from those who have successfully competed for such a grant. The seminar will also focus on the institutional and professional benefits of submitting P01 and center grants.

Project Overviews and Specific Aims

This spring, we offered a seminar on Writing Your Project Overview and one on Writing Your Specific Aims with Chris Phiel, Associate Professor of Integrative Biology and Sonia Flores, Professor in the School of Medicine (respectively). We now have the videos from those seminars edited and up on our vimeo site. Please check them out!

Denver: Writing a Project Overview

Faculty Expert: Chris Phiel, Associate Professor, Integrative Biology

Description:

Reviewers tend to make up their minds as to whether they like or don’t like a grant proposal upon reading the first page. This makes your project overview, whether it be Specific Aims or a Project Summary, essential in terms of hooking your reviewer and getting them excited about your work. Join us for this seminar where you will learn how to craft your project overview to be clear and compelling.

Video: https://vimeo.com/338961503

AMC: Writing Your Specific Aims

Faculty Expert: Sonia Flores, Professor, School of Medicine

Description:

The Specific Aims is the most crucial component of your NIH grant proposal. It is the first thing the reviewers assigned to your proposal look at, and for those reviewers not assigned to your proposal, it is often the only thing they see of your proposal before scoring it. In this seminar, you will learn how to craft your Specific Aims and you will hear from a seasoned PI on their experience with Specific Aims from a PI and Reviewer perspective.

Video: https://vimeo.com/338929668

Saving space in your proposal

Life is a trade-off. If you're like me, you spend the first part of your schooling thinking how am I going to fill five pages, 10, 20, 30? And once you're writing grant proposals, you ask, how am I supposed to keep this proposal to 15 pages? Well, there are plenty of bad ways to save space in your proposal, like moving the margins or shrinking the type-face. But below I offer you some good space-saving strategies:

Use active, first-person voice:
Scholars and researchers are often trained to use the passive, third-person in their academic writing.

Here's the difference:
Passive, third-person: The experiment will be conducted by the researcher.
Active, first-person: I will do the experiment.

Why do academics want to use the passive, third person? A couple of reasons: first, it alludes to the objectivity of the research and removes the researcher from the written proposal. Second, it sounds more formal, more appropriate for the expert reviewers. But, I argue that the benefits of the active, first-person outweigh those of the former. First off, it's shorter. I cheated a little bit in my example and changed the verb, but either way, it's going to end up shorter. And when you make these changes to all of your sentences, you'll save a lot of space! Second, active, first-person is easier to read. Any good technical writer worth her word processor will tell you that!

Remove hyperbole:
I recently reviewed a grant proposal where the PI described something as "very, very important." Now, I get that it's hard in a grant proposal to really make things stand out, but this is not the way! Firstly, my loyal blog readers have heard me say this before, but I once had a Technical Writing Professor who said that there is never a good reason to use the word "very," and she had long since banned it from her writing. Her point was that it didn't add anything to the sentence. If something is important, say "it's important." Adding "very," let alone, two of them doesn't articulate anything significantly different. Now, I'll take this a step further even and suggest that not only should our PI cut out the "verys," but I would ask, is there a way you can show that this is important instead of just saying it? Is there a way to structure the description to make it clear to the reader that this is important, so that you don't have to tell them? Now, I've made this argument and lost several times before and I acquiesce that sometimes using this hyperbole cues the reader to pay close attention. So, if you must, say something is important or great or incredible, but please don't say it's very, very incredible.

Cut sentences that don't have a clear purpose:
When you're running out of space in your grant proposal, you need to be brutal. This means going through the proposal line by line, and cutting sentences or phrases that aren't really making a difference. They may be eloquent, they may be poetic, but if they're not doing the work of making your case to reviewers, they have to go!

Phone a friend:
So, after you've changed everything to active, first-person, cut out hyperbole, and brutally curtailed your proposal and you still can't find enough room for your amazing diagram (that you're keeping at a size that reviewers can see), it's time to call for reinforcements. You need to find a colleague to go through and tell you what's still in your proposal that isn't necessary and where you can condense.

These tips can help you cull a mostly-written proposal, but another thing to do is create a well-organized plan of attack before you start writing your grant proposal. If you can outline and identify what you want to do in each section first, it'll help you stay out of the weeds in your first draft. That way there will be less you need to cut later on!

Resources:
Top three things to cut from your writing - Kyra Thomsen

PO1 and Center Grants

Last week, we held a panel on putting together PO1 and Center grants, or Large Team Grants (LTGs). Panelists included researchers who had successfully competed for LTGs and those who had facilitated putting those grant proposals together. Panelists agreed that putting an LTG together takes about 3-5 years and endeavors like these must be led by senior investigators with a substantial record of past funding. Some participants asked why it was worth the work that LTGs require when getting funded with an R01 is much easier for established investigators. Dr. John Hokanson, Professor in the Colorado School of Public Health, explained that LTGs allow you to do more innovative and collaborative science than you can do as an independent investigator. His enthusiasm was apparent as he described the cutting-edge research he'd been able to lead through developing LTG projects and proposals.

Furthermore, we're seeing funding agencies and the science community at large call for proposals that engage big questions that often call for multiple PIs from various fields coming together to offer substantial solutions and steps forward. LTGs are exciting and next level, but they are a lot of work and a lot of planning. Below are tips the panelists offered in working toward an LTG.

• Give yourself time: As mentioned, panelists agreed that it takes 3-5 years to build your team, develop your projects, and put together your grant proposal.
• Contact your Program Officer early and often to discuss your ideas and begin to build their understanding and buy-in for your LTG.
• Focus on integration: It's not enough to just have a series of great projects, you need to show how the sum of the whole is greater than its parts.
• Develop your story: You need to become a story-teller to convey the necessity and excitement of your program.
• Establish clear communication upfront: As you develop your team, make sure you're all clear on expectations and commitments so the wheels don't come off as you build momentum.
• Offer a diagram: When you're at the point of proposal writing, show your reviewers visually how all the parts of your program/center work together.
• Consider submitting R01s at the same time: If you're submitting a P01, you can also submit individual projects to the NIH as R01s at the same time. This way if your P01 is not funded, but some R01s are, your project can get going and you can look to revise the P01 for the next cycle building on what's been done with the R01s.
• Work with people who have had LTGs. Even for the most seasoned investigator, an LTG is a challenge. Be sure to reach out to those PIs who have developed an LTG successfully to get their insight, tips, and mentorship.

LTGs can sometimes seem insurmountable, but the opportunities that lie in large team science are worth the work and there is potential in receiving funding for your large endeavor for 10+ years. Think of the possibilities within that time!

Resources:

Strategies for Planning, Developing, and Writing Large Team Grants - Mike Cronan

PO1 Guide for Reviewers - NIH

Writing emails to Program Officers

Researchers sometimes think that it is cheating or inappropriate to reach out to agencies and their POs. Yet, in a poll of former POs at CU, all responding POs emphasized the importance of PIs reaching out to make sure the grant proposals 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/two-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 them. 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 POs. 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
Can we talk? Contacting a Grant Program Officers - Robert Porter
How do I approach a foundation...? - grantspace.org

Education Foundations

Last week, I attended the American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference and heard from several leaders at prominent education foundations on a panel. The foundations represented were the Spencer Foundation, the William T. Grant Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the Foundation for Child Development. The panelists discussed larger foundation issues and their appropriate role in education research, but each also discussed priorities and directions for their respective foundations, which I highlight below.

Na'ilah Suad Nasir, President, Spencer Foundation:
Dr. Nasir highlighted the directions of Spencer after beginning her presidency last year and listening to education researchers about their needs. Moving forward, Spencer is focused on racial inequality and reducing bias in its processes. Along with these foci, Spencer wants to build capacity and spread the wealth amongst education researchers. One of the ways they plan to build capacity is that they will begin offering feedback/reviewer comments on 100% of their proposals. In the past, some types of proposals submitted to Spencer would only receive a decision to fund or not, and the applicant would not have any sense as to why their proposal was rejected if it was.

Adam Gamoran, President, William T. Grant Foundation:
Dr. Gamoran saw the priorities of his foundation as focused on the three Ms: messaging, mobilizing, and making connections. In terms of messaging, distributing the funded research and getting the word out to policymakers who can use the research to make change. In terms of mobilizing, they were working to build bridges for researchers and funders to collaborate and make the biggest impact. In terms of making connections, again pairing researchers, funders, and policymakers with the right people to make the biggest impact in education.

Kent McGuire, Program Director of Education, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation:
The Hewlett Foundation is focused on research that improves learning outcomes. They are interested in research partnerships with practitioners to ensure the application of research. Lastly, they are interested in diversity within the research community and are developing projects to build diversity within the research pipeline in a variety of ways.

Jacqueline Jones, President and CEO, Foundation for Child Development:
The Foundation for Child Development is focused on children, infant - eight-year-olds. They are interested in research that can inform policy and practice related to children. They are especially interested in the implementation of research, where they can see results.

Kent McGuire in the panel session compared individual research projects to "a flea biting the elephant; where to bite matters." The key to finding a fit with any funding organization is to be in agreement as to where to bite.

Resources:
Spencer Foundation
William T. Grant Foundation
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Foundation for Child Development