Naomi's Final ORDE Blog

Well, although we just had a farewell blog for our ORDE Director, Lynette Michael, I'm afraid I am going to also say goodbye this week. After serving for nine years, I'm leaving to join Colorado State University as their Assistant Dean of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Services. I'm excited for this new opportunity, but am also sad to leave my post and all my dear friends and colleagues at CU Denver and the Anschutz Medical Campus!

As I've reflected on my time here, I thought I'd leave you all with some of the lessons learned from our CU faculty related to grants over the years...

Michael McMurray, Associate Professor, Cell and Developmental Biology

Dr. McMurray once presented at a seminar, where he shared that as a long time NIH reviewer, he had never seen a proposal funded that did not include a figure in their specific aims page. His statement made me a life-long advocate for using figures well in proposals. They make it easy for reviewers to quickly understand what you're trying to do and prove that a picture is really worth a 1000 words!

Amy Brooks-Kayal, Professor of Pediatrics, Yale School of Medicine

When she was at CU, Dr. Brooks-Kayal was one of our favorite seminar speakers. She reminded us to always spell out why the problem you're trying to solve in your research is important. As an Epilepsy researcher, Dr. Brooks-Kayal share her strategy of highlighting "my disease is bad too" multiple times in a proposal. She said that in every presentation she gives and every proposal she writes, she shares the statistics around Epilepsy, knowing she can't assume that everyone understands how devastating a disease it is.

Jean Kutner, Professor, Internal Medicine

Dr. Kutner taught us the importance of creating balance in our lives. She doesn't look at work/life balance as such, "It's all just life," she said. She also shared with us her "Black Shoes" analogy. In her household for every new pair of black shoes she buys, she has to get rid of a pair. She manages her work responsibilities in the same way, If she agrees to take on something new, she intentionally considers what other things she can sunset or delegate to others.

Amy Wachholtz, Associate Professor, Psychology

Dr. Wachholtz told us to figure out what our t-shirt would say. If you were to wrap your research agenda into a catchy t-shirt slogan, what would it be? She highlighted the importance for researchers to show how their research is relevant now and into the future.

Bob Damrauer, Professor, Chemistry, Former Associate Vice Chancellor for Research

Working with Bob for most of my time at ORDE, I, of course, learned many lessons from him. But, probably the one that sticks out most was his insistence on stating things clearly. He made the point that before you can write about something clearly, you must be able to think about it clearly. Beyond this, Bob has in his email signature a Ross Perot quote, "If you see a snake, just kill it. Don't appoint a committee on snakes." For me it captured the importance of directness of which Bob is an exemplar.

Our blog will be on pause for a bit until a new resident grants blogger at CU steps in. In the meantime, below are some resources to tide you over.

Thanks for reading y'all; it has been my honor to write this blog since 2013! - Naomi

Resources:

ORDE Seminar Videos

SPIN Fund-Searching Tips

Research Funding Opps for New Investigators

Early Career Faculty Tips

Before the pandemic, I participated in 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.

Don't forget to look for funding

Oftentimes new faculty come into an institution and they are overwhelmed by preparing to teach and settling into all the new responsibilities that come with a faculty position. This is normal, but oftentimes faculty forget to return to their research once they've settled in. Don't set your research and the funding you need to do it to the side for too long. Take a look at the e-book below to build your awareness around what research funding opportunities are available to you!

Resources:

New Investigators Funding e-book - ORDE
From PhD to Professor - The Muse
The Professor is in: 4 Steps to a Strong Tenure File - Chronicle of Higher Ed

Budget Justification

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

Budget Justification Best Practices - Brown University

Lessons Learned from Lynette

Our wonderful Director of the Office of Research Development and Education (ORDE), Lynette Michael, is retiring at the end of the month, and so I saw it fitting to reflect on the things that I have learned from Lynette in the almost nine years I've worked with her. She, herself, has been at CU Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus for 23 years!

How to use SPIN

Lynette has been a fund searcher for faculty for a long time. Before she came to CU Denver | AMC, she was at Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL). She has told the stories of how she used to wait for the federal grants program books to come in the mail and then of her joy combing through them to find good fits for the WUSTL researchers. Here, Lynette has been able to use the Sponsored Programs Information Network (SPIN) to conduct these searches, and has taught me and several others how to design our own searches, including creating a one-pager of reminders for us when she is gone!

Understanding the context of agencies

Given Lynette's tenure in working with researchers and agencies, no one else I know has a better understanding of the history and context of a multitude of funding agencies. Lynette has taught me the importance of understanding the context and history of an agency as a researcher works to understand if they're a good fit for them. Knowing the mission of an agency and how it and priorities have shifted over the years is important to understand if you want to be competitive in the application process.

Being supportive of colleagues

Even when I've annoyed Lynette over the years (which hardly ever happens!), I never have to doubt that she will be supportive of me and that she is in my corner. But, I've also watched the way she's been supportive of particularly early career investigators (ECIs). ECIs often have a lot to learn and work on when they're new to the grants world, but Lynette has modeled how to always be supportive of our researchers, especially when they might be flailing. I have continued to watch green researchers over the years move from a place of confusion and frustration to one of confidence and productivity in their research. What we can learn from Lynette here is the importance of having grace for ourselves and others and to seek out and offer support to our colleagues.

Putting people first

I tend to focus so hard on getting something done or moving something along that I sometimes forget to pay attention to what's most important to me and my colleagues, and that's us and our families and communities. Lynette has taught me the importance of taking a break, spending quality time with friends and family, and making sure I'm encouraging my colleagues and team members to do the same.

Items of honorable mention:

• Lynette has taught me to use less commas.
• Double proofread outgoing messages.
• Lynette has taught me not to feel bad about eating lunch at 11 am or earlier.
• Lynette has not revealed what the 'G' stands for as her given first name! :)

Thank you, Lynette, for everything you've done for us! Congratulations on retirement!!!

Resources:

SPIN One-Pager

Research Funding for New Investigators e-book

Why are you the right PI?

Imposter syndrome is real for many folks in academia; this feeling like you're not qualified to do something can really do a number on your self-confidence, and this is particularly true for PIs from minoritized communities. However, there is a flipside to this. There are also PIs who assume they are the right person to do research that might be a little outside of their expertise. This is okay, but when you get to the edge of your area of expertise, it's a great opportunity to build a partnership.

Regardless of if you experience either of these afflictions (self-doubt or over confidence), you will still need to justify in your grant proposals why you and your team are the best folks to do the research project you're proposing. Whether you're talking about yourself/your team in biosketches and/or somewhere else in the proposal, consider the following:

Form the right team: 

Make sure that you not only have people who specialize in the key components of the project, but also make sure that everyone on your team has a clear purpose. Sometimes people join a team and the project focus shifts such that they become redundant. Have honest conversations with your team about their areas of expertise and how everyone will contribute.

Talk about your experience:

Not only are reviewers assessing if your project is innovative, they are also assessing that you are the best person or if your team is the best team to do the project. So, don't forget to make your case for why it's you!

Work yourself into previous research:

One of the best ways to demonstrate your experience and fit for your project is talking about the research you've done in the field already. Be sure that as you're describing the cutting edge of research that you're citing your previous work and making it clear that you're already doing this work. This sets you up to be the obvious choice to being doing this work.

Discuss gaps/answer questions:

Life happens, particularly these days with COVID. If you have a gap in your productivity due to health, parental leave, or caretaker responsibilities, simply say it. You don't need to go into detail or try to justify it; simply let reviewers know why there's a gap, and then they won't doubt your productivity otherwise.

Resources:

Secrets to writing a winning grant - Nature

How to win a research grant - Times Higher Education

Start with the exciting!

This last week, I was reviewing a grant proposal that opened with logistics, stated the goal of the project, and then discussed the methodology. My first thought was, "Huh, the program guidelines must ask for this order!" I went to check, and no, there was no such prescription. The PI had simply listed key elements of their project in the order in which they were thinking about them. This is understandable, but they had forgotten to center their audience (the reviewers) and think about what they'd want to know and when. Most concerning, they had inadvertently 'buried the lede.'

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

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Principles for Research

ORDE has launched a branch of programming focused on equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in research. In so doing, it behooves us to define these terms and also to begin with principles that EDI ought to be built on.

But, first things first, what is EDI?

Equity: Everyone has access and opportunity at the same levels.

Equity is commonly confused with equality, which refers to everyone getting the same thing. The problem with equality is that depending on your identities and experience, and the vast disparities that many groups face, if everyone is given the same thing, for some it won't be enough to get them access. Equity is everyone having access and opportunity and takes removing barriers to ensure this. 

Diversity: All groups are represented proportionally.

Diversity tends to be used to refer to race and particularly to People of Color, but this ignores other elements of diversity and is used to scapegoat race conversations when it is used in its stead.

Inclusion: Everyone can engage and participate fully as their whole self. 

Although inclusion does mean everyone can engage/participate fully, we often forget that historically some people like white, wealthy, straight, able-bodied cis-men were always included, were always at the table. For this reason, the work of inclusion is ensuring that those who have been and are excluded be allowed to fully participate as their whole selves.

With that foundation, let's explore a couple other EDI principles that should be considered in research.

Power and systems of oppression

Oftentimes people's identities are assumed to impact people in the same way. A race evasive perspective might assume that skin color doesn't matter, but this is ignoring that race is an oppressive system that places power and privilege with white people and oppresses People of Color. Or when someone considers gender and/or LGBTIQ+ issues and does not also consider sexism, homophobia, or other oppressive systems within heteropatriarchy, they are not fully understanding how these are working.

Intersectionality

Legal Scholar, Kimberlé Crenshaw developed the concept of intersectionality, describing, "Intersectionality is a lens through which you can see where power comes and collides, where it interlocks and intersects. It’s not simply that there’s a race problem here, a gender problem here, and a class or LBGTQ problem there. Many times that framework erases what happens to people who are subject to all of these things." Crenshaw urges us to consider power in all social systems and how they work together. In research, this might mean if we are considering gender and not race, the needs and priorities of Women, Trans, and gender-nonconforming People of Color may fall through the cracks or be rendered invisible given their multiple marginal/minoritized identities.

Applying these principles to your research begins with understanding them and then asking, how am I accounting for these in my research, both in the design and the execution? We'll continue exploring these in our EDI in Research Seminars and right here on our blog!

Resources:

The Urgency of Intersectionality - Kimberlé Crenshaw
Problematizing Race as a Variable - Naomi Nishi, ORDE (e-Seminar Video)
Problematizing Race as a Variable - Naomi Nishi, ORDE (Blog)

Pilot Grants & Preliminary Data

Many investigators joke that to get a grant for your research you have to have completed the research to report your results in your proposal for the project you've already done. And there is a bit of truth in this jest. Most grant-making agencies today want to see significant preliminary data before investing in your project and you with a grant.

This can create a catch 22 for PIs when they need funding to move forward with the projects to get preliminary data. When you're in this situation, your institution may have internal grant programs to help get you going. For instance, at the University of Colorado Denver Campus, the Office of Research Services has an internal grants program to get faculty off and running.

Externally, there are grants for pilot projects or new innovative projects. When applying for these types of grants, it is important that you develop a larger vision for your research beyond your pilot or seed project. What is your ultimate goal? Where will you secure funding for your larger project? Once you know where you're ultimately going with your research and how you will get there, you need to identify the parameters of your pilot or seed project that will allow you to secure the preliminary data you need to compete for your bigger project.

Once you know what you must accomplish in your initial project, you'll be able to outline a budget and clearly describe not only your small initial project but also make the case for what this project will allow you to do afterward.

It's important to note that while some pilot grants are for the very initial stages of research, some require preliminary data or at least expect it. So bear this in mind and read the program announcement thoroughly to determine if the program you choose will meet your needs and if you can meet its demands.

Resources:
Highlight Preliminary Data in Your Application - NIAID

Common Errors in Preliminary Data Section - ConductScience

Mid-Summer Check-in

By my count, summer is more than half way over, so it's time to take stock of where you're at in terms of being refreshed and being productive in your research. For many institutions, there is a plan to return to campus this fall, and in many ways this will mean a uniquely busy start to the academic year following a uniquely challenging year in a pandemic. So, preparing yourself will be especially important this year.

Don't Stress:

Now that I've freaked you out with a reality check, my first piece of advice is don't stress. If you're like most researchers, you've set big goals for yourself this summer along with some plans of catching up, and you weren't able to do it all. But, don't get hung up on it. Look at all the things you did do, and if you spent a lot of time relaxing, that's great - you needed it! So, do a reality check, but let go of any guilt or regret that comes along with it. Just use the moment to reset your plans, remembering that one important goal is for you to start the fall semester energized!

Plan For One More Break:

To that last point, plan for at least one more break in your summer. Take a trip or stay-cation and relax. Stay away from your email and projects and really focus on R&R. If you're having a hard time giving yourself permission for this, remember that stepping away from projects that are undone can give you a fresh perspective when you come back to them. So, set down that manuscript for a week; when you come back to it you'll be ready to tackle it.

Tie up Loose Ends:

Remember, the fall brings with it classes and meetings that you had some reprieve from during the summer. See what loose ends you can tie up before the semester is upon you. You'll feel better knowing that the grant proposal is in or you've submitted your review of a manuscript. Try to get those things done to free up some brain space.

Schedule Your Next Steps for Research:

Too often, faculty get caught up in the rigamarole of classes and teaching and before they know it, they're midway through the spring semester and they haven't made real progress on their research. Don't get caught in this. Plan for what you want to do related to your research fall semester and put due dates on your calendar or block out time on your calendar now so you don't get off track.

It will be a challenging year, but remember it will also be a rewarding year! You'll do great work and make important contributions to your field, so get ready!

Resources:

7 Productivity Tips, Backed by Science - Lemonade

Productivity for Researchers - Nature

Finding Clarity in Project Descriptions/Narratives

The season of internal grant proposal review is upon us, or upon me anyway. And, as always, I use my experience reviewing to draw blog inspiration. What's been jumping out at me most is the importance of offering a clear project description or project narrative in your grant proposal.

In the grant development world, our conversation often focuses on the importance of making a case for your project - explaining what's been done already and why your research is so important. And while making a case for your research is essential in securing grants, it is equally important to very clearly show your reviewers what you're going to do.

In the last week, I've seen proposals that made an excellent case for their research, and got me on board, thinking "yes, I agree, this research needs to move forward." But, at the same time, more than once, I found myself asking "But what are they going to do?" They might have done a nice job of telling me what's been done already, including what they've done, but that does not serve as a substitute for telling me what they will do next with the funding for which they're applying.

Below, I offer some tips to clearly convey your project narrative.

Give an overview

Most research is complex; there is a reason that most researchers in academia have a terminal degree. But therein lies the rub when trying to synthesize your doctoral level work to someone who has a doctorate in something else. Offering an overview of your project is thus a good way to ease your reviewers into understanding your project. If you begin by giving them a summary of what your project is about before giving them the details, they're more likely to be able to follow you into and through some of the more technical project details.

Use numbers

Giving specific numbers of things can help reviewers get a picture of your project. How many subjects? How much time? How many groups? Answering these type of questions can give your reviewers clarity around the scope of your project. Having said that, although numbers can be helpful, be careful about including equations or formulas in your grant proposal unless absolutely necessary and only when you can be sure that reviewers will be able to make sense of them.

Give a timeline

People, including reviewers, tend to think chronologically, so offering a timeline image in your project narrative can give them clarity around what step you'll be doing when. It also offers a concrete snapshot of your entire project.

Use plain language in Methods

Methods tend to be the most technical part of any research proposal. These are where the acronyms, formulas, and algorithms are unleashed, making it treacherous reading for reviewers whose expertise does not lie in your exact area. So, write it carefully. Think before every step, is there a clearer, more accessible way to say this. If the answer is yes, rewrite it in that way. All of your reviewers, including your technical experts, will thank you for going the extra mile to write a clear and understandable methods section.

Remember, even if you've convinced your reviewers that the world will end if research doesn't move forward, they will still not recommend funding if they don't understand your project. Follow-up that case with a clear solution.

Resources

Project Summary/Abstract and Narrative - NIH

Problematizing Race as a Variable

Society is abuzz these days with concepts like DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and now JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion), for the DEI Star Wars fans. I hear them flowing from the mouths of executives, politicians, grant-making agencies, and higher education folks. You would think that as a race researcher, I would be over the moon to see so many picking up the mantle of DEI. However, I grow more concerned as I notice that within this flurry, those same people aren’t addressing systemic racism and certainly not white supremacism.

When we see this in research—when researchers treat race only as a variable—it’s troubling. Amidst the DEI movement, I’ve seen calls to consider diversity and inclusion in proposals sent to major grant-making agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Researchers, eager to acquiesce, respond by seeking a racial diversity of participants and reporting results based on race.

Too often, that’s where it ends. In 2012, renowned higher education researcher Dr. Shaun Harper published an article entitled, “Race Without Racism.” In it, he critiques higher education research publications that focus on race and racial disparities, but do not address racism. He argues, “In order to get beyond persistent racial disparities and to realize the vision for a version of American higher education that is truly equitable and inclusive, we must first take account of racism and its harmful effects on people in postsecondary contexts.”

Harper notes that a focus on race without a consideration of racism allows for an analysis that casts Black, Indigenous, & People of Color (BIPOC) in a deficit light. This situates BIPOC people as a problem needing to be fixed or helped. As anthropology scholar Dr. Bianca Williams said, “I don’t have a problem because I’m Black, I have a problem because you’re racist.” Applying a deficit lens to BIPOC people ignores the root of the “problem” being examined, blames the victim, and avoids the oppressor and oppressive system.

Beyond the deficit lens, there is a more insidious trend in research that is particularly notable in the health sciences: the connotation of race as inherent or biological.

Some background: Race is a hierarchical social construction created by and for those who considered themselves White. Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus was one of the first Europeans to classify people by what we now know as race. Linnaeus took a break from his work of classifying plant life and decided to try his hand at people. His classifications included skin color and a host of negative character attributes for those who were not European or white.

The concept of race evolved thanks to the European settlers colonizing the U.S. who wanted to assert their self-bestowed superiority and justify heinous and genocidal systems, such as the enslavement of Africans and stealing land from Indigenous people.

In her 2006 book, Medical Apartheid, Harriet A. Washington describes how the U.S.’s history of medical research and aligned pseudoscience (particularly that of Eugenics) led to the violent dehumanization of Black people, in particular. She describes the vital role medical and health research has played in upholding white supremacism in its work to “prove” the superiority of the White race.

While most health researchers have disavowed such work and its explicit racism, frightening statistics from the last decade like that of Hoffman et al (2016) show that not just white people, but a substantial portion of white medical students and physicians, believe that race is biological. In one example, 58% of white participants in the Hoffman study thought that Black people’s skin was thicker than white people’s skin. Twenty-five percent of white medical residents concurred.

This brings me to my point and my concern. Race as a concept was created, developed, and promoted to uphold White supremacy in all of our systems, including education, the law, technology, and healthcare. When researchers and the general public try to analyze and interpret research results that include race as a variable, but do not account for racism, assumptions of race as biological are not only possible, but probable.

As a remedy, researchers can begin to combat this trend by simply asking of their results: How is racism at play? Do not ask what’s wrong with Black, Brown, and Indigenous people that they score lower on standardized tests, have worse health outcomes, or are arrested and incarcerated more. Ask how racism is working in this system to disenfranchise and oppress the BIPOC groups to the point that they are experiencing these disparities. It is in this acknowledgement and action that we can genuinely make strides to combat inequity.

I am not calling for the removal of race, even as a variable, from research. I’m calling on researchers to also include considerations of racism in their research to resist a deficit lens and the association of race with human biology.

According to the Oxford definition, a Jedi is “trained to guard peace and justice in the Universe.” As researchers, the first step in our JEDI training is to understand how the dark forces of racism are at work, including within our own research.

Resources:

Problematizing Race as a Variable e-Seminar - ORDE 

Harper, S.R. (2012). Race without Racism: How HigherEducation Researchers Minimize Racist Institutional Norms. The Review of HigherEducation 36(1), 9-29. doi:10.1353/rhe.2012.0047.

Hoffman, K. M., Trawalter, S., Axt, J. R., & Oliver, M. N. (2016). Racial bias in pain assessment and treatment recommendations, and false beliefs about biological differences between blacks and whites. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 4296-4301. doi:10.1073/pnas.1516047113.

Javier Perez-Rodriguez & Alejandro de la Fuente (2017) Now is the Time for a Postracial Medicine: Biomedical Research, the National Institutes of Health, and the Perpetuation of Scientific Racism, The American Journal of Bioethics, 17:9, 36-47, DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1353165

Takeaways from the NSF 2021 Conference

Last week, the National Science Foundation (NSF) held their annual conference, virtually. This conference is great particularly for early career researchers considering applying to the NSF for funding. Below are some of the big takeaways from the conference.

First, and excitingly, the NSF mentioned the priorities they have put forward in the 2022 Presidential Discretionary Budget Request, stating "The 2022 discretionary request includes major investments to tackle the climate crisis through climate and clean energy research, boost research and development, advance racial equity in science and engineering, and bolster U.S. leadership in critical and emerging technologies." (pp. 35-36). This signals that researchers focused on technology, climate, and racial equity in STEM should get ready to apply to the NSF if they aren't already in there!

NSF Program Directors provided several tips for PIs in applying. These included reading the Proposal & Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). I was struck in the Q&A during to the Introduction and Interview session that every other response was look at the PAPPG.

The other takeaway was the recommendation of "Ask early, ask often," which also echoed throughout the conference. The idea is that you should be in contact with your Program Officers as you consider applying to the NSF and then as you're developing your proposal. And don't forget about the early part! You should begin the process of researching the NSF and if they're a good fit for you about six months before the deadline.

One of the last things that I found particularly interesting was that when one participant asked an NSF Program Officer how they defined systemic racism, given the NSF's priority around racial equity in STEM, the PO responded that the NSF doesn't define these terms and that they leave it to the PI to define and justify their approach. I'll note that I found this problematic, but was happy that there was some guidance on how to approach racial equity given the NSF's new priorities.

Given that the NSF's entire conference was virtual, all of the presentations are now online. I encourage folks to check them out!

Resources:

NSF Conference Recordings

President's Discretionary Funding Request

Setting and Maintaining Your Summer Writing Schedule

Yesterday, we held our e-seminar on setting and maintaining your summer writing schedule and brainstormed some great ideas to stay on track with your summer writing. Below were some of our big takeaways:

Setting Goals

When it first begins, summer feels like it will go on forever, but in reality, we only have 10-12 weeks in the summer when there is a respite from teaching and other faculty responsibilities. So, when we realize that this time will fly, the sooner we set goals, the better. When setting your goals for summer, think about what you need to accomplish this summer to feel like you've been productive. But also make sure these goals are realistic and account for your well-deserved relaxation time. Remember, you don't want to push yourself so hard in the summer that when fall comes around, you feel like you just ran a marathon!

Scheduling

Once you've set your ambitious yet realistic goals, time to schedule. Break out those 10-12 weeks and divvy up your goals into weekly tasks. Then focus on the daily. To do this, you want to identify when you do your best writing. Most of our group seemed to find their best writing time in the early morning (~5:00 am) and might defer tasks that took less brain power to later in the day and early evening. Consider blocking your calendar for writing time. One of our participants noted that their schedule varied so much that they needed to sit down every Sunday to identify their writing time for that week.

Habits

Developing good writing habits can help you most effectively get your work done. These habits might include establishing rituals around when, where, and how you write. Eliminating distractions like phones, email, social media, or even things like dishes and laundry, which loom large during the pandemic. You can also engage writing sprints and building in breaks where you move around. Start off experimenting with what works for you and then make it a habit!

Support and Accountability

Lastly, find ways to stay accountable. Try forming a writing group or finding a partner. One participant noted that she and a colleague would get up at 5 am to start writing and just send each other a text to keep them going and accountable. Another person said they would blurt out deadlines for themselves in meetings so that everyone who heard them could help keep them accountable.

Hopefully, this offers some ideas to help you be productive this summer, but still allow you to be feel refreshed and ready to gear up come fall!

Resources:

ORDE Seminar: Setting & Maintaining Your Summer Writing Schedule

Scheduling Summer Writing - IHE

Using Analogy in Grant Proposals

What do you call a seagull flying through the bay? A bay gull (pronounced bagel). This little gem comes from my older son. I begin this blog about analogies with a joke because I think it speaks to the power of double meanings. Even as ridiculous as the joke is, it makes us think a moment and maybe smirk, because we find it clever or even sometimes engaging and intriguing the way we can use words or phrases to mean many things.

Conversely, there are many different ways and words to explain one phenomenon. Here I'm talking about analogies. I can explain a process to you by verbatim walking you through the steps of that exact process or I can find a similar process that you're already familiar with and use that description to explain something new to you.

For instance, I attended a talk by one of our Physics Professors awhile back and she was describing how researchers are going about trying to detect dark matter. To do this she used a pool ball analogy. She said that since we cannot see dark matter, researchers theorize that we can only detect it when it bumps into molecules of regular matter that we can sense and see. She described that this bump is ever so slight, not a direct hit. She then went on to admit that she was not a good pool player and when she hits the cue ball toward a ball she wants to hit in a pocket, sadly she just skims the target ball with her cue ball and jostles it slightly. Such is the interaction with dark matter (the cue ball) and matter (the target ball). So, detecting dark matter is similar to trying to detect the jostling of the target ball (matter), which we can then assume was bumped slightly by the cue ball (dark matter).

Using this analogy, she created a clear visual for her non-expert audience on how she does her work. This analogy gave us an overview of a complicated process using something familiar to us. It was more clear and engaging for her audience than if she'd just stuck to the verbatim explanation of dark matter detection. Other researchers have used military strategy to describe information security or plastic bags to describe cell membranes in their grant proposals. These paint a picture for the reviewers and engage them because you are inviting them to make the connection between the analogy and your research with you. A good analogy can give your audience a sense of discovery and excitement around your research.

So, how do you create a good analogy for your research?

1. Identify the attributes of your research problem and project: Whatever part of your research that you feel is quite complex and needs an analogy, start listing out attributes of how it works, what it does, barriers involved, etc.

2. Compare these attributes with other matching phenomena: As you are listing attributes, you'll likely have some analogous phenomena pop into your head. If, when you're finished listing attributes and you can't think of an analogy, go bug your neighbor or a student and brainstorm with them. Describe the attributes of your research to them and see if you or they can't come up with something in discussion.

3. Test your analogy against your research problem/project: Make sure that you then compare your research to the analogy and that the pieces you're trying to describe line up. If significant pieces of your analogy work differently than your research process, keep digging for a better analogy. As great as a solid analogy is at explaining something, it is confusing when it is not aligned with what you're trying to describe.

It's not simply coincidental that analogies are a strong teaching tool and an effective grant-writing tool. Bottom line is that an analogy is a sense-making tool that allows for more effective communication in whatever form. Beyond that it makes your subject matter far more memorable!

Resources:
The Underused Writing Trick That Makes You More Powerful, Popular and Persuasive - Smartblogger
The Persuasive Power of Analogy - CopyBlogger

Summer e-Seminar Series

This week we released our Summer e-Seminar Series. We plan to focus on planning and maintaining your research and also topics related to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). You can register here. 

Setting & Maintaining Your Summer Writing Schedule
Wednesday, June 3rd
12:00 – 1:00 pm
Whether you’re in the throes of grant writing, or you’ve got an R&R on your plate, it can be difficult to stay on track with your summer writing. Join us for this faculty discussion on how to set and follow-through with your summer writing schedule that allows you to be productive while still finding balance and having a break!

Problematizing Race as a Variable
Tuesday, June 22nd
12:00 – 1:00 pm
So much of research takes race into account as a variable or category, but does not examine racial constructs critically. This allows researchers in STEM, medicine, healthcare, and beyond to treat race as if it were a biological difference, which it is not. In this meeting, Dr. Naomi Nishi will delve into the history of race and race-making in research. Participants will reflect on how race is understood and used in research and in higher education and identify how to appropriately consider the impact of race, and particularly the role of racism in these systems.

Planning Your Research Agenda for Fall
Tuesday, August 3rd
12:00 – 1:00
As summer comes to an end, what’s your plan to move your research ahead in this academic year. Join us to learn and share strategies for developing a realistic research action plan and learn strategies for staying on track throughout the year.

Considering DEI in Research
Thursday, August 12th
12:00 – 1:00 pm
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) seems to be everywhere, but what does it mean in research? How are grant-making agencies talking about DEI and what are they looking for in funded projects? How can we as researchers authentically engage DEI in our research and respond effectively to the calls? In this seminar we will answer these questions and offer strategies for engaging DEI in research.

Resources:

ORDE Seminar Registration

NIH Collaboratory: Including Diverse Participants

The Reviewer's Gaze

I've been reviewing grant proposals for various faculty in the past couple of weeks. As I've done this, it's struck me that as an outsider to these PIs' research, I have the advantage of coming to their project and proposals fresh. And, as I do, I've paid attention to what I find interesting and exciting, what confuses me, and what catches my eye. It is this last consideration that I want to address today. Although it focuses a bit more on the aesthetic nature of the proposal (much of which the PI has little control of given formatting requirements), the reviewer's gaze is important to reflect upon. Here are some key points:

Drawing the eye:

Bolding, underlining, and italicizing are common ways that writers draw the reader's eye to something important. But, be sure you're thinking through where you want to draw your reviewer's eye and that you're doing so sparingly. I have seen grant proposals that use every form of highlighting available to them quite liberally, and this confuses the reader. What is really important? What is worth distracting your reader from starting at the beginning of the page and reading through? Headings are worth the emphasis. Think about when you look at a page of writing before beginning to read. The headings give you useful clues for what you're going to find on the page. I took a speed reading class years ago, and remember that the instructor recommended going through a whole article or book at the start to see what the chapters and headings told us before starting to read.

It can also be useful to bold or highlight essential pieces of your proposal, like your driving hypothesis or research question. Things that it may be helpful for your reviewer to note before reading the whole page. Specific aims or project goals are other items that may be worth bolding, but I recommend stopping there. I've seen some PIs bold the word "very" and other hyperbole by itself. Although the use of the word "very" is generally used to emphasize something and bolding may seem like a logical progression, ask yourself 'Is seeing the word "very" worth distracting my reviewer for?' Probably not.

The Reviewer's path:

Often when PIs are putting their proposal together, they assume the order of the proposal as presented to the reviewer is also the sequence that the reviewer will use to read it. However, we know this is not the case, reviewers report that they usually begin with the abstract and/or Specific Aims or Project Overview, but then they may skip to the methodology to see how you're going to do this great work. Or, they'll skip to the biosketch to better understand who you are as a researcher. Then they might flip to the budget to get a better sense of your project scope and what you are prioritizing monetarily in the work. Think through the reviewer's potential paths through your proposal, because it may spur you to include information in different places. For instance, say your reviewer flips to your biosketch or methodology early on, are you including language in both places to build confidence in them that you're the perfect person to conduct the research? Or, might you be assuming that they read one or the other first? To help you understand the reviewers' paths, ask your internal reviewers to share with you what order they read your proposal in and weigh this along with the other feedback they give to you.

The Squinting:

As you know, unless this is the first time you're reading my blog, I'm a big advocate of including visuals in proposals. They break up blocks of text and give reviewers' other, sometimes easier-to-understand, ways to grasp your project and its significance. However, as much as I love visuals, I frequently find myself squinting at a diagram or table for one of two reasons. The first may be because the text is too small. This is a fatal flaw; if it's hard or impossible to read, you will have not only wasted space with a visual that is uninterpretable, but also you will have likely annoyed your reviewer (refer to Nishi's cardinal sin of grant-writing: Thou shalt not annoy your reviewer!) The other reason I find myself squinting at visuals is when I can't make sense of them. Sometimes a key is missing. Sometimes things are mislabeled or vaguely labeled. Sometimes the visual is so complicated I decide that I would need to earn another degree if I had any hope of making sense of it! Again, if this is the experience of your reviewers, it is akin to wasting space and again likely violating our cardinal rule. So, make sure your visuals are as simple as they can be, are clear, and are readable.

Considering these approaches and getting internal reviewers' fresh eyes on your proposal can help you combat issues that may otherwise muddy your proposal for reviewers.

Resources:

Grant Application: Top Tips for a Visually-Successful Application - Enspire.Science

Secrets to Writing a Winning Grant - Nature

Beating Writer's Block

Well, we're at the end of the semester, and I don't have to tell any of you what an academic year it's been! For me, I feel like everything this year has taken more energy that I didn't feel like I had. In the midst of this, summer seems like a respite, seems like it'll offer a bit of a break, and perhaps allow us to do the things we didn't get to this year, like writing perhaps.

But, as I turn to the task of writing, even this blog, I'm lacking motivation. So, what better than to review some approaches to beating writer's block and dealing with writer's fatigue - which may be an even bigger problem this year!

1. Give yourself a break
Let's face it, we all need a break, so take one. Do it intentionally. If your break is just you feeling bad about all the work you should be doing, it won't be a break. So, make it real. Maybe get away for a bit once you're vaccinated. Put your out-of-office on your email and your phone. Read a book, hang out with loved ones, binge watch a tv show, cook, go for a walk or run... you get the idea. Take a break; you need it and deserve it!!! 

Ok, once you've taken a real break, you may find yourself begrudgingly approaching your writing, in short you have a bit of writer's block. If that's the case, try these:

2. 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.

3. 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!

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

Developing and Using a Concept Paper

This week, we held our Spring ORDE Book Club, focused on the 5th edition of Successful Grant Writing. We had a good discussion, and one thing that came up was the development and use of a concept paper for your research project.

Concept papers are one to two page overviews of a research project or idea that an investigator uses to vet and tailor their project to be a good fit for a particular funding agency. 

A concept paper can be used as a tool to allow a researcher to hone a particular research idea, but they also serve as a tool for marketing your research and networking with potential collaborators or Program Officers. You can keep concept papers on hand at conferences to give to folks you're interested in partnering with, or email them to a Program Officer to get a sense of the fit of your project for their directorate, study group, or program.

In our book, the authors recommend the following elements be included in you concept paper:

Problem statement/hypothesis: In one to two sentences what is your project intended to do?

Objectives: What are the key goals/outcomes you expect?

Methodology: Briefly describe what you'll do.

Budget: Optionally, include a broad budget, identifying where you'll use funding.

Key Personnel: Who is on your team?

This will give you a generalized concept paper that you can shop around at conferences to both POs and potential collaborators. However, as we discussed at our meeting, if you know what agency you plan to target for funding your project, it makes more sense to use the overview format that agency expects in their proposals. So, for example, if you plan to submit a proposal to the National Institutes of Health, write up a Specific Aims page. If you're going to the National Science Foundation, write up a Project Overview, including merit and broader impacts statements. Or, if you're going to the DOD, you might use a whitepaper format. The point is, when you're going to a particular agency, use the format that the PO is used to seeing when vetting your idea.

If you're not sure where you're planning to go for funding, or you're going to a foundation that does not have a clear format for the overview, the book's recommended format is a good way to go. As a bonus, creating a concept paper gets your idea on paper and pushes you to start thinking about what the project might look like ultimately.

Resources:
ORDE Book Club Video
How to Write a Concept Paper - Hanover Research

Structuring Paragraphs in Your Grant

Oftentimes, writers break to a new paragraph without a lot of thought. When you have a new idea, start a new paragraph is the guideline under which most of us operate. Yet, when we think about it from the reader's perspective, when a paragraph does not contain a complete thought or when a new paragraph makes a giant leap to a new subject without warning, our heads are left spinning!

So, as writers, there are a couple of things we can do to keep our readers from getting lost or frustrated. Using the mnemonic device MEAL, we can remember what should be in most paragraphs...

M - ain idea: This is your topic sentence; it sets up your reader to know what the paragraph is about

E - vidence: Of course, most main ideas need a little justification, so your evidence portion is a couple of sentences that back up your main idea.

A - nalysis: You're writing about this topic, because you have something to say about it, so what is your take on the main idea and the evidence you've cited?

L - ink or Last thought: This is a sentence or two where you conclude your thoughts and/or provide a linking sentence to the next paragraph.

Let's look at an example from an NIH award abstract:

Main  Evidence  Analysis  Link/Last thought

Excessive anxiety and fear leads to anxiety disorders, which impact many aspects of life, from the interpersonal to professional spheres. Although each anxiety disorder has different symptoms, they all share a core feature: mal-adaptive expression of high levels of anxiety. In our study, we will study how the brain suppresses anxiety. Prior studies showed the amygdala is largely responsible for generating high anxiety and fear, while the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) decreases these behaviors, possibly by inhibiting amygdala output. Indeed, in humans higher vmPFC activation correlates with lower amygdala activation and decreased anxiety. These data suggest the vmPFC-amygdala pathway may decrease anxiety and fear, but they rely on correlative measures, and can't directly test this hypothesis. We used optogenetics to directly test if the vmPFC-amygdala projection suppresses anxiety and fear. 

Remarkably, optogenetic activation of the vmPFC-amygdala pathway robustly inhibits innate anxiety and learned fear, while inhibition of this pathway increases anxiety.... 

As with any writing rule, there are exceptions and easily-readable paragraphs that leave out one component or another. Yet, when you pull all of the paragraphs together in a section, they should include all of the MEAL components pretty regularly.

In terms of paragraph organization, Otto Yang, in his book, Guide to Effective Grant Writing: How to Write a Successful NIH Grant Application, offers a technique to better construct and organize your paragraphs.  For one section, take the first line of every paragraph and put them together to see if those lead sentences alone give you an understanding of the piece.  This is important especially for grant-writing where reviewers often skim the numerous proposals they review. Giving your reviewers clear sign posts at the start of a paragraph will be much appreciated.

Although these techniques are helpful when you're writing, often they're more useful to apply when you are re-reading and revising.  You've already gotten your thoughts down and they seem to flow, but perhaps you'll realize in making revisions that your reader will have to read half-way through many of your paragraphs before they understand your main point.  In this case, it may serve you and your reader well to apply some paragraph revisions.

Resources:
Paragraphing with the MEAL Plan - Capella University
Paragraphs - University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Writing Center

The NIMHD

The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIMHD’s mission is “to lead scientific research to improve minority health and health disparities” (Source: About NIMHD web page). To meet  this mission, the Institute supports external and internal research initiatives. NIMHD also serves as an information source for both the medical community and the US public.

 The Institute’s function dates back to 1990 and the formation of the Office of Minority Programs within the NIH Office of the Director. In 1993, it became the Office  of Minority Programs, and in 2000 was elevated to the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities. The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities became the official designation in 2010 as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Specific Interests

NIMHD has identified three research interest areas to advance minority health and address health disparities:   1) Clinical and Health Services Research, 2) Integrative Biological and Behavioral Research, and 3) Community Health and Population Sciences. The Institute has also developed a Research Framework Model incorporating factors to be considered when studying minority health and health disparities. This initial model has been modified for specific health disparity populations as well (see Dr. Manson’s edition specific to Native Americans).

Approach

NIMHD supports external research efforts, providing research funding to universities, medical institutions, non-profit, and for-profit organizations. NIMHD advertises specific interests using requests for applications (RFAs), program announcements, and general program descriptions. Internal research efforts are focused on three disease areas associated with significant health disparities: cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and cancer.

 NIH just published the “Minority Health and Health Disparities Strategic Plan 2021-2025”, outlining a variety of specific goals including emphasizing health promotion, increasing intervention research, improving methodology research, training up the next generation of minority health and health disparities researchers, ensuring representation of minority and other health disparity populations in NIH-funded research, and many others.

Agency Organization

Within the structure of NIH, NIMHD has its own Director. The Director, with their leadership team, sets the vision for the Institute and deploys budget resources responsive to that vision. There are three programmatic divisions within the Institute beyond the Office of the Director:

·       Science Programs (including extramural research)

·       Data Management and Scientific Reporting

·       Intramural Research

 The National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NACMHD) provides guidance on the Institute’s research portfolio and serves in an advisory capacity for the Health and Human Services Secretary, NIH and NIMHD Directors on matters related to the Institute’s mission. The Council has 15 members as well as ex officio members and representatives from other federal agencies.

Resources:

Know Your Agency Brief: NIMHD

NIMHD Know Your Agency e-Seminar

NIMHD Strategic Plan

Submitting Clear and Compelling Publications

Yesterday we held our e-seminar on submitting clear and compelling publications, and as a group we came up with many great tips and strategies. Some of which I share below:

Choosing a journal:

The earlier you can choose a journal to target, the better. This is because, once you know what journal you want to submit to, you can write the article that best fits the journal's aims and scope as well as spend time seeing what their publications tend to look like, allowing you to craft a pub that best fits. When selecting a journal, consider review time, impact factor, as well as the audience you want to reach. Consider reaching out to the Editor before submitting if you have questions that aren't answered on the website or in the guidelines.

Considering audience:

The best writing is that written with the audience in the mind. So, before you put pen to paper, think about who will read it. What information will they be looking for and how do they plan to use it. What background will they have coming to your piece, and what do you need to fill them in on?

Writing tips:

There are many small things to keep in mind that can help improve your writing. Firstly, use active voice if your target journal allows it; it's simply easier to read than the passive alternative. Second, keep your sentences short; when they get to 3-4 lines long, you've probably got a couple sentences merged into one. Third switch up your word choice. I have a tendency to start using my favorite word of the day over and over again, and I don't catch it until I'm reading my draft out loud later on - that's when all the errors jump out!

Writing process:

Feeling out your writing process is half the battle to good writing. Start out by identifying when in your day you write best. Is it first thing in the morning or late at night? Try outlining your manuscript before you start writing. Identify what you want to convey in each section. What are your key points? What background information will your readers need? 

Leave yourself breadcrumbs. Don't button up all of your writing at the end of a writing session, because you'll sometimes find yourself at what feels like an insurmountable wall of a new section when you start writing the next day. Instead, start a new paragraph and stop before you've completed something where you're on a roll. It'll make it that much easier to get going in that next writing session.

Hopefully, these offer you some things to help improve your process of writing and publishing. Below are several resources for more tips and strategies, including our full seminar. Happy writing!

Resources:

e-Seminar: Submitting Clear and Compelling Publications - ORDE

Steven Pinker's 13 Rules for Good Writing

How to Get Published in an Academic Journal - The Guardian

Tools for Biosketch Updates

If you're an NIH researcher, you've probably heard by now that the NIH has released updated guidelines for biosketches in their grant applications. I've noticed a flurry of discussion around, what are these changes and what do they mean? So, first off, you can see the NIH notice here and the NIH has updated their instructional page for their new biosketch format here. 

Luckily, the changes themselves are few and they include the following:

• The title of Section B has changed to "Positions, Scientific Appointments, and Honors"
• Section D, "Additional Information: Research Support and/or Scholastic Performance" has been removed

These changes can elicit a collective groan from NIH researchers who now have to reformat their biosketch for their next submission....unless you are taking advantage of the tools available to you that make these biosketch transitions relatively easy. I'm talking about ORCID and SciENcv.

Yesterday, ORDE held a seminar on Managing Your Biosketch with ORCID and SciENcv. ORCID is serving as the national standard for scholarly registries. Although it takes time to set up on the front end, ORCID can pull publications and grants from a variety of databases, including PubMed and crossref.

Better yet, ORCID can work together with SciENcv to format your biosketch, aligned with the most recent guidelines when you're developing a grant application for the NIH, NSF, or IES, in particular. Additionally, you can make public your most updated biosketch, find other researchers/collaborators, and allow them to find you.

It's important to note that although being set up in ORCID makes updating your biosketch much easier, you should avoid thinking about producing your biosketch on automatic. For each grant application, it's important that you craft your biosketch to respond to the program to which you're applying. Reviewers often report reading the Project Summary or Specific Aims and then flipping to the biosketch to better understand the PI and if they're the best person to do the project. The reviewer is looking for the best project and the best PI to carry it out. So take the time to make sure you're putting your best foot forward for every grant proposal.

Avoid the collective groan next time your grant-making agency announces a format change to the biosketch! To get started setting yourself up in ORCID, below are a variety of tools, including yesterday's e-seminar. 

Resources:

Setup your ORCID: https://orcid.org/signin

Watch this tutorial on SciENcv: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRWy-3GXhtU&feature=youtu.be

e-Seminar on ORCID and SciENcv: https://vimeo.com/529006767

Successful Research Collaborations

Yesterday, we held a great e-seminar with Drs. Hillary Lum and Brianne Bettcher in the CU School of Medicine. We took notes during the talk and came away with a list of great tips that I've shared below. Feel free to watch the seminar video here!

Finding Collaborators:

• Look for gaps in your own knowledge/expertise.
• Identify people who can fill any gaps?
• Draw on other's strengths to complement yours?
• Find collaborators through NIH RePORTER.
• Get connected through mutual colleagues/mentors.
• Check the Colorado Profiles website to find colleagues’ content areas and who they have published with.

Beginning a Collaboration/Grants Considerations:

• Consider how reviewers will see your team vs how it operates when project gets going.
• Consider level of involvement you are seeking from collaborators.
• Think through how to demonstrate and describe the collaboration in grants, perhaps in the grant, in the biosketches, in the letters of support...
• Diverse perspectives/collaborators can take more time on the front end but can allow for a more dynamic/productive team longer term.

Maintaining a Collaboration:

• Trust is especially important with an external collaboration.
• Summarize group meetings in an email afterward to keep folks on the same page.
• Navigating power differentials + distance adds to complexity.
• Reach out to mentors or peers for help and advice.
• Discuss managerial style upfront.
• Have metacommunication - discuss how you will communicate.

Collaboration Pitfalls/Threats:

• Do not assume a collaborator is invested or bought in
• Do not over/underestimate collaborator's strengths.
• Getting clarity/agreement about your role beyond the grant development.
• Threat: Collaborators changing institutions
• Re-set or modify expectations when threats occur.
• Understand how power dynamics might be working to hinder team communication.
• Have face to face meetings when there is conflict (tone can be misinterpreted in email)

Key tips for successful collaboration:

• Build a strong relationship with good communication and having fun!
• Find collaborators you are excited to work with.
• Do the work / do what you said you would do, where your expertise is.
• Create a team charter that outlines vision/values, roles, authorship, decision-making, communication plan, and conflict management plan.

Resources:

Successful Research Collaborations Video

Successful Research Collaborations Resources

Using background research to bolster your case

When reviewers read your grant proposal, sometimes they are not as familiar with the field as you are. This creates a tricky juxtapositioning of your proposal. You must speak to reviewers who are both experts in your field and those who are somewhat familiar.

Building your project case using background research can help you navigate this conundrum. Clearly walking reviewers through the cutting edge research in your field, identifying the gap, and showing how your project will fill that gap can help present a clear case to those with varying levels of project-specific expertise. Below, I offer some tips in presenting background research to create a clear and compelling case.

Make sure you're aware of all relevant research:

Remember, that your reviewers will likely include experts who have conducted research in the same area. Although you may not know who will be reviewing your proposal, if a reviewer is a researcher in your area who has conducted cutting edge research (or knows of some) not reflected in your proposal, it can be bad news for your review. Of course, you can't cite everyone in your proposal, but make sure that you're citing those studies that are most relevant. Definitely make sure that you've reviewed all relevant research before submitting your application.

Highlight your own research:

If you've been one of the researchers contributing to the cutting edge research in your area, be sure to show that. You're not just trying to convince reviewers that your project is brilliant and innovative, but also that you're the best person to complete the research. What better way to show that than to describe how you've been doing this work already?!

Show the gap and why it should be filled:

If you've laid out the cutting edge/background research well in your proposal, it should be obvious that there is a gap. But even if that seems obvious, carry your idea through. Explicitly identify the gap and don't stop there! Explain why this gap needs to be filled and why now. You may feel like you're getting repetitive in stating and re-stating these points, but you want to tie up any loose ends in your case and re-emphasize your key points. As long-time reviewer, Andrew Thorburn, has noted, there's no such thing as making your grant proposal too simple. Remember, reviewers are reading a lot of applications in one sitting and sometimes at the last minute. Reviewers will thank you for conveying your project as simply as possible.

You are probably really excited about your research project. But, why is that? You have been on a journey in your research and discovered a missing link. Without the context for that journey, which is rooted in background research, reviewers will not be able to get excited with you.

Resources:

Background and Significance Sections - ConductScience

How to write a grant proposal - NCBI

It's true, I heart commas!

As our Director of ORDE will attest, I love commas, especially the Oxford comma. Years ago, I read the CNN article, "An Oxford Comma Changed this Court Case Completely." The article discusses how laborers won a dispute against their employers when their contract was deemed ambiguous because it was lacking an Oxford comma. The Technical Writer in me just loves a story where punctuation or lack thereof makes the difference in something big!

But let me back up. Some of you may be wondering, what is the Oxford comma? The Oxford comma is simply the last comma before the conjunction (the "and" or "or") in a series. Below, I draw on an example from the grammarly blog:

Without Oxford comma:
I love my parents, Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty.

In this example, I seem to be saying that my parents, whom I love, are Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty.

With Oxford comma:
 I love my parents, Lady Gaga, and Humpty Dumpty.

Here, with the oxford comma, I am just listing figures that I love, which include my parents, Lady Gaga, and Humpty Dumpty.

The consequences of leaving out the Oxford comma when I'm simply listing things I love, could be that I'm inadvertently referring to my parents as Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty, and I doubt they would appreciate their new nicknames!

Beyond the Oxford comma, commas, generally, are important. As an example, I'll draw on one of my favorite punctuation books, Eats, Shoots, & Leaves. This book uses a short scenario to show how meaning changes with and without any commas.


A panda bear walks into a bar.

Without commas:
He eats shoots and leaves.

In this first example with no commas, we imagine a bear heading into his local bar for his favorite lunch: shoots and leaves.

With commas:
He eats, shoots, and leaves.

This example creates gorier picture. This disgruntled panda walks into his local bar, and after eating, opens fire and then walks out!

Case closed! Commas and comma usage is important. And, now, in case I haven't yet proved what a nerd I am, I will leave you with a picture and fake quote from the late Alan Rickman.

Resources:
An Oxford Comma Changed this Court Case Completely - CNN
What is the Oxford Comma and Why Do People Care So Much About It? - grammarly blog