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)