Don't bury the lede

At our e-seminar last week, we offered many tips on grant writing for a lay audience. One of these, was "don't bury the lede." Now, before you think that I don't know how to spell "lead," I'll tell you that 'lede' is the spelling that journalists use to talk about the lead. Apparently, they wanted to have their own special way of saying 'lead' or 'lede,' so there you have it.

But, although burying the lede is an age-old journalistic warning, it is also an age-old mistake made in grant writing. To bury the lede in your grant writing is to lose the main point of your proposal, to make it difficult for your reviewer to find what your project is all about. This happens particularly when you're trying to describe your project in a proposal and don't take the time to step back and ask why does my work matter? And, more importantly, why does it matter to the funding agency and the reviewers? So below, I offer some strategies to consider for your next grant proposal so that you don't bury your lede.

Show how bad the problem is (or how big the opportunity is)
Oftentimes, PIs forget to communicate how big the problem is that their research is confronting. For researchers focused on a big problem day in and day out, we sometimes forget that not everybody knows how big it is. So, it's our job to spell out the big problem and show how big it is. Offer numbers to quantify how many lives are affected or how much money is wasted. Bring your reviewers along your line of reasoning and be explicit about the why of your research.

State your project goal in the first few sentences
I've seen proposals where the PI does a fantastic job explaining how dire a situation is and setting themselves up for why their research needs to be done. But then, they forget to tell us exactly what their research project is about in the Specific Aims or Project Overview. This can be a fatal flaw. Reviewers are usually reviewing many proposals at a time and trying to get a sense for what they're about quickly. We need to help them out by stating what the research project is we're proposing in the first few sentences. It's great to set up your problem, but make sure you cue your reviewers into the solution as well and don't make them hunt for it.

Bold/highlight wisely
Bolding, underlining, and italicizing can be a nice way of highlighting the goal, hypothesis, or aims in your proposal, but it doesn't take a whole lot to overdo it and instead create a sort of bolded/highlighted soup where your reviewer isn't sure where to look. To avoid this, make sure you're selective about what stands out, and also make sure you're highlighting the important text not the text saying it's important. I've reviewed proposals before where the writer wrote something along the lines of "This objective is very important." Now, I don't think it's a great practice to say something is "very important" in your proposal. If however, there is something worth bolding, bold that information instead of the text that says it's important.

Researchers often want to share a lot of important information all at once, but take your time to identify what your reviewer needs to know first and foremost, focus on that, and don't distract them from it.

Resources:
Grant Writing for the Layperson - ORDE e-seminar recording
The Anatomy of a Specific Aims Page - Bioscience Writers
How to Write Goals and SMART Objectives for your Grant Proposal - Joanne Fritz