When it comes to going for a grant, since we are the research development office, we tend to say, "Yes, you should!" Our zeal comes from seeing many researchers who were great candidates for grants decide not to go for them.
However, even we can concede that deciding to go for a grant isn't always a simple decision. Grant proposals are laborious. ORDE recommends a six month process for developing a grant proposal. And, I'll add, that a seasoned PI at our Anschutz Medical Campus recently praised our timeline and even suggested that early career investigators should be planning their grant proposal a year before it's due! So, see? It's not just us!
Grant proposals are complex and take a lot of work and care, and that's why you want to be wise about the grants you choose to go for, because it is heartbreaking to put in all that work and never get the grant even after resubmission(s) (which are to be expected).
So, below are things to consider as you decide whether or not to go for a grant:
Are you and your project a good fit for the grant?
It's true, even if you and a grant are a match made in heaven, it still takes a lot of tailoring and aligning to make sure that your proposal is the perfect response to an RFP or PA. If, as you're going through the program announcement, you start to get a sense that the agency is looking for something besides you and your research, this may not be the best fit. However, before throwing in the towel, reach out to the Program Officer to verify (see more below).
Do you have enough time to develop the proposal well?
Sometimes you stumble on to a program announcement that does seem perfect, but then "Oh no, the deadline is in three weeks!" When this happens, probably the best thing to do is check to see when their next deadline is, because three weeks isn't enough time to write a strong proposal. Make sure you always take time to map out a realistic timeline for developing a grant and if a quick deadline won't allow that, you may want to forego this one.
Will this project and grant move you toward your research goals?
Grants are a tradeoff; you have to give the agency everything they're looking for in your funded research, but you want to get some of what you want to do in there as well. Just make sure you are getting something in there that is what you really want to do and will move you a bit further along in your research trajectory. A funded project is often a years-long endeavor, so make sure it isn't tangential to your goals.
What does the Program Officer say?
As I mentioned above, the best person to help you decide whether you should apply or not is the Program Officer. Once you have a project overview or concept paper, email your Program Officer and ask for a brief conversation about your project. They will give you good advice as to whether you're a good fit. If they're not enthused, you may want to look for another funder. For example, one PI described contacting a PO at the NSF and when he asked the PO if he thought he should apply, they said, "I guess." That PI went in search of another funder.
I offer these tips cautiously, because most times if a program announcement looks like a fit for your research, you should submit a proposal. Don't get scared away because it's not an ideal scenario, because it may never be.
Resources:
ORDE Grant Development Timeline
ORDE Proposal Development Checklist
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Thursday, January 23, 2020
The hardest thing about grant writing
Yesterday, I spoke with a person who is working to design a course for doc students at his university on good grant writing. I talked him through some of the approaches we use in ORDE and some of the exercises he might want to use in his class. He had a list of questions for me, but the one that jumped out was when he asked "What is the hardest thing about grant writing?" Now, I'm a literal person, so I had to think about it a minute to make sure my reply was indeed what I saw as the most difficult part of grant writing. Finally, I said, "The hardest part about writing a grant is learning how to describe your research and its importance to a non-expert or layperson."
Now, you may be thinking that writing for a non-expert or layperson is not really a necessary part of the grant writing process. To that I say... Yuh-huh it is! But, don't take my word for it. Check out this excerpt from the American Heart Association, stressing the importance:
I could go on and point to other funding agencies that are explicitly or implicitly looking for PIs to convey their work and its importance to the general public, but suffice it to say, they are and it's important.
But, why is it so hard? You would think that explaining something in which you are an expert would be a breeze. But, it's difficult because you are an expert. You've spent years learning about and developing your research. How can you possibly explain all the intricacies of your work to a novice? And therein lies the rub!
So, briefly, here's are some tactics to help you meet this, the most difficult of grant challenges:
Try explaining/discussing your research with a non-expert: Step outside your lab or office and you'll find non-experts all around. Try out your explanations on students - you can call it teaching :) Aside from this, notice the questions you're asked when presenting your research to non-experts; this may give you a hint as to how to explain it.
Follow the 'why?' and 'So what?' trail: I have two small kids, so I'm used to explaining and then explaining my explanation and so on ad nauseam, but if you start forcing yourself to explain your work and its importance, you'll get better at it. So, even if you don't have kids to test you in this capacity, you can still task yourself with these additional explanations, and it may be slightly less annoying too!
Change formats: Sometimes if you map something out in a conceptual diagram or even a mind map, you begin to see new ways of describing it to others.
Come up with metaphors: If you can think of something else that works similarly to mechanisms in your research, using those more common metaphors can help you explain it. I've seen folks describe a cell membrane as a plastic bag or proteins regulating cellular development in the ways that traffic lights regulate traffic. What works in similar ways to that in your research? And can you use it as an explicative tool?
Sometimes trying to approach something in a new way gives you a fresh perspective for explaining your complicated work to others. So, give it a try; you may just be able to conquer the hardest part of grant writing!
Resources:
Grant Writing vs. Academic Writing - ORDE
Writing for the Layperson - ORDE
Now, you may be thinking that writing for a non-expert or layperson is not really a necessary part of the grant writing process. To that I say... Yuh-huh it is! But, don't take my word for it. Check out this excerpt from the American Heart Association, stressing the importance:
AHA Summary
for Non-scientists Updated for 2020
I could go on and point to other funding agencies that are explicitly or implicitly looking for PIs to convey their work and its importance to the general public, but suffice it to say, they are and it's important.
But, why is it so hard? You would think that explaining something in which you are an expert would be a breeze. But, it's difficult because you are an expert. You've spent years learning about and developing your research. How can you possibly explain all the intricacies of your work to a novice? And therein lies the rub!
So, briefly, here's are some tactics to help you meet this, the most difficult of grant challenges:
Try explaining/discussing your research with a non-expert: Step outside your lab or office and you'll find non-experts all around. Try out your explanations on students - you can call it teaching :) Aside from this, notice the questions you're asked when presenting your research to non-experts; this may give you a hint as to how to explain it.
Follow the 'why?' and 'So what?' trail: I have two small kids, so I'm used to explaining and then explaining my explanation and so on ad nauseam, but if you start forcing yourself to explain your work and its importance, you'll get better at it. So, even if you don't have kids to test you in this capacity, you can still task yourself with these additional explanations, and it may be slightly less annoying too!
Change formats: Sometimes if you map something out in a conceptual diagram or even a mind map, you begin to see new ways of describing it to others.
Come up with metaphors: If you can think of something else that works similarly to mechanisms in your research, using those more common metaphors can help you explain it. I've seen folks describe a cell membrane as a plastic bag or proteins regulating cellular development in the ways that traffic lights regulate traffic. What works in similar ways to that in your research? And can you use it as an explicative tool?
Sometimes trying to approach something in a new way gives you a fresh perspective for explaining your complicated work to others. So, give it a try; you may just be able to conquer the hardest part of grant writing!
Resources:
Grant Writing vs. Academic Writing - ORDE
Writing for the Layperson - ORDE
Thursday, January 16, 2020
Tips for conveying methods in your grant
Writing clearly and compellingly about your research in a grant proposal is always a challenge. Nowhere is it more challenging than in your methods section. When I am reviewing grant proposals for our faculty, the methods section is commonly the part where the proposal goes off the rails. PIs who have made a brilliant case for their research project slip back into shop-talk in their methods section. All of the avoidance of jargon and acronyms carefully navigated in the project overview are ignored when it comes to their offering methodological details. This is understandable. After all, methods are the most technical aspect of your proposal.
Conversely, some PIs, in trying to convey their methods to a broader audience, end up offering a vague and confusing account of how they will conduct their research, perhaps not wanting to bore their reviewers with the nitty gritty of their work. Yet, going too far down this broadening path can often leave your readers in an utter state of confusion and annoyance. Obviously, being overly technical and being too vague are both fatal flaws to grant proposals, so where's the middle ground?
The methods portion of your proposal serves as the bridge between the vision of your research and the business plan. Whereas your project overview, research objectives, and impact statement serve as your venue for communicating vision, your timeline and budget serve as your business plan, showing the reviewers that you will be an effective project manager. The methods portion links these two elements. It takes your brilliant vision for your research and demonstrates that it is rooted in reality. Below are some tips to make sure you take full advantage of your methods bridge.
Give context: Oftentimes there are a variety of methods that could be applied to answer a particular research question, but the methods you're planning to use are the best. So, why is that? Explain to your reviewers the history of your methods and the options available. How has similar research been done in the past? Are you using the same methods or how have you adapted those methods?
Justify your choices: As you give context for your methods, you'll find that you are quite naturally justifying the methods you've chosen for your study. But, be explicit. Answer the questions of why are these the best methods? How did you choose these methods? Why should reviewers be confident that they are the best fit? Why are you?
Show your methodological expertise: Even if you have the best project and the best methods nailed down, if you can't instill confidence in your reviewers that you and your team are perfectly suited to carry them out, your grant will be dead in the water. So instead, offer evidence of your expertise. Summarize your past research and experience using these methods to nip any element of doubt in the bud.
Put your methods write-up through internal review: To assist you in walking that fine line between too technical and too broad, be sure to have others review your proposal. Have a colleague in your field review your methods. Have another colleague slightly askew of your field review them. Then, have a layperson review your methods. If all three of these people can understand what you're going to do and why it's the best way to do it, you'll be in good shape when it comes to your external reviewers.
Resources:
How to write the methods section of your proposal - Joanne Fritz
Writing proposals with strong methodology - Kusum Singh and Gavin W. Fulmer
Conversely, some PIs, in trying to convey their methods to a broader audience, end up offering a vague and confusing account of how they will conduct their research, perhaps not wanting to bore their reviewers with the nitty gritty of their work. Yet, going too far down this broadening path can often leave your readers in an utter state of confusion and annoyance. Obviously, being overly technical and being too vague are both fatal flaws to grant proposals, so where's the middle ground?
The methods portion of your proposal serves as the bridge between the vision of your research and the business plan. Whereas your project overview, research objectives, and impact statement serve as your venue for communicating vision, your timeline and budget serve as your business plan, showing the reviewers that you will be an effective project manager. The methods portion links these two elements. It takes your brilliant vision for your research and demonstrates that it is rooted in reality. Below are some tips to make sure you take full advantage of your methods bridge.
Give context: Oftentimes there are a variety of methods that could be applied to answer a particular research question, but the methods you're planning to use are the best. So, why is that? Explain to your reviewers the history of your methods and the options available. How has similar research been done in the past? Are you using the same methods or how have you adapted those methods?
Justify your choices: As you give context for your methods, you'll find that you are quite naturally justifying the methods you've chosen for your study. But, be explicit. Answer the questions of why are these the best methods? How did you choose these methods? Why should reviewers be confident that they are the best fit? Why are you?
Show your methodological expertise: Even if you have the best project and the best methods nailed down, if you can't instill confidence in your reviewers that you and your team are perfectly suited to carry them out, your grant will be dead in the water. So instead, offer evidence of your expertise. Summarize your past research and experience using these methods to nip any element of doubt in the bud.
Put your methods write-up through internal review: To assist you in walking that fine line between too technical and too broad, be sure to have others review your proposal. Have a colleague in your field review your methods. Have another colleague slightly askew of your field review them. Then, have a layperson review your methods. If all three of these people can understand what you're going to do and why it's the best way to do it, you'll be in good shape when it comes to your external reviewers.
Resources:
How to write the methods section of your proposal - Joanne Fritz
Writing proposals with strong methodology - Kusum Singh and Gavin W. Fulmer
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
Fall 2019 ORDE Seminar Videos
Happy New Year!
I thought it appropriate by starting the new year with a look back at some of our seminars from the fall. Below are the descriptions and links to the edited videos on our vimeo site!
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
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
I thought it appropriate by starting the new year with a look back at some of our seminars from the fall. Below are the descriptions and links to the edited videos on our vimeo site!
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!
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.
Faculty Experts: Vikhyat Bebarta, Professor of Emergency
Medicine; J. David Beckham, Associate Professor of Medicine, Neurology, &
Immunology/Microbiology; Rosemary Rochford, Professor of Immunology &
Microbiology; Travis Taylor, Associate, Strategic Marketing Innovations (SMI),
Inc.; David Visi, Associate, SMI, Inc.
In partnership with the CU Office of Government Relations, in this Know
Your Agency Lunch, we will hear from Drs. Travis Taylor and David Visi from
SMI, Inc. 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.
Faculty Experts: Naomi Nishi, Associate Director, ORDE; 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.
Happy viewing, and as we look forward to what 2020 has in store, don't forget to register for our Spring Seminars!
Resources
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)