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