In the book I mentioned last week, Foundations of Grant Writing: A Systemic Approach Based on Experience, the authors (Walker and Pascoe) make the point that in a grant, you need to be able to make a case and they offer some different ways to design your case. They also suggest that PIs talk to lawyers about how they design their cases to convince a judge and jury to get some new perspective on designing their case.
In developing an argument, you have two core pieces: your claim and the premises that support that claim.Walker and Pascoe suggest that in building a case, you begin by brainstorming a diverse set of premises. What are all the needs that will be filled, benefits realized, and disasters averted by your research project being completed? Think about it from a financial, societal, moral, and health perspective to be sure you're not missing something. After this brainstorming phase, begin to organize these premises. The authors suggest using deductive logic in the overview (going from broad to specific premises).
Walker and Pascoe also outline several approaches to creating your case that I summarize below.
Linear, Deductive
In using this approach, you begin by identifying your central claim, "rank-ordering" your premises, making sure that they are clear, they flow, and generally move from broad statements of justification to more specific, ending with your central claim, which your readers should arrive at naturally, based on your deductive path.
Question-Answer Case Argument
In this approach, you begin your grant outlining a number of questions that get to the heart of what your project is addressing. You then use literature and your narrative to provide answers to these questions and guide your reader to the conclusion that your project is needed as a next step in responding to the issue outlined.
Review, Critique, and Solve
This approach begins with the literature and what's been done in your area. You then critique this work, highlighting gaps in the body of work and showing how your project will address the gap(s).
Theory-action
For this approach, you start by outlining the theoretical framework and background in which your work is rooted, show how your research will use and build on this theory to produce specific outcomes. This approach works well when the result of your research might be policy change.
In thinking about your grant as making a case or an argument for your research, it can offer you a venue for really demonstrating the importance of your work and the passion you have for it. Imagine you were in a court room, or better yet, standing before your review panel. How would you convince them?
Resources
Foundations of Grant Writing: A Systemic Approach Based on Experience - Walker & Pascoe, 2015, p. 54-67
Friday, September 25, 2015
Friday, September 11, 2015
If it's important, say it again
I'm reviewing a new grant-writing book out of the University of Oregon: Foundations of Grant Writing: A Systemic Approach Based on Experience (Walker & Pascoe, 2015). In the book, the authors suggest that in grant writing, it is important to say important things more than once, but that there is a fine line between re-emphasis and redundancy. You don't want to annoy your reviewers by moving into broken record territory.
They suggest instead that grant writers should employ creative redundancy. Creative redundancy is when you convey the same points to your reader in a slightly different way so that your reader catches the point and understands its importance but isn't sensing deja vu, reading the exact same point again.
Grant writing in particular is a genre where writers are often in danger of being redundant. With different sections of the grant asking for something similar, you could be tempted to cut and paste. But resist this urge, remembering that although it may be annoying to have to write something similar in your project description as in your project overview, reviewers will be equally annoyed to read the same thing over again and think that you're wasting their time. As one of our seasoned faculty members once said, the number one rule in grant writing is not to annoy the reviewers.
Other grant writers have suggested that when describing the problem that you're solving in a grant to cite national statistics around consequences to society, economics, health, etc. and in a subsequent section, reemphasize how bad your problem is by offering similar international statistics or even relating a short human interest story.
By using creative redundancy, you make it easy for your reviewers to understand what is so important about your project, and you don't underestimate them or make them feel underestimated by making them read the same thing over again. Remember, most reviewers are skimming your grant, and it's easy to miss something important. But, once you've hooked a reviewer and they do delve into your grant, you want to continue pulling them in with new and intriguing information that reinforces the need for your research.
Resources:
Foundations of Grant Writing: A Systemic Approach Based on Experience - Walker & Pascoe
Great Grant Writing - M.J. Murdoch Charitable Trust
They suggest instead that grant writers should employ creative redundancy. Creative redundancy is when you convey the same points to your reader in a slightly different way so that your reader catches the point and understands its importance but isn't sensing deja vu, reading the exact same point again.
Grant writing in particular is a genre where writers are often in danger of being redundant. With different sections of the grant asking for something similar, you could be tempted to cut and paste. But resist this urge, remembering that although it may be annoying to have to write something similar in your project description as in your project overview, reviewers will be equally annoyed to read the same thing over again and think that you're wasting their time. As one of our seasoned faculty members once said, the number one rule in grant writing is not to annoy the reviewers.
Other grant writers have suggested that when describing the problem that you're solving in a grant to cite national statistics around consequences to society, economics, health, etc. and in a subsequent section, reemphasize how bad your problem is by offering similar international statistics or even relating a short human interest story.
By using creative redundancy, you make it easy for your reviewers to understand what is so important about your project, and you don't underestimate them or make them feel underestimated by making them read the same thing over again. Remember, most reviewers are skimming your grant, and it's easy to miss something important. But, once you've hooked a reviewer and they do delve into your grant, you want to continue pulling them in with new and intriguing information that reinforces the need for your research.
Resources:
Foundations of Grant Writing: A Systemic Approach Based on Experience - Walker & Pascoe
Great Grant Writing - M.J. Murdoch Charitable Trust
Friday, September 4, 2015
Paragraph Structure and Organization
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
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
Friday, August 28, 2015
Scientific Writing
Scientific writing is simply writing about science. There seems to be an enigma around the phrase and perhaps the belief that one should use "scientific writing techniques" to write about science or in the scientific realm. In fact, good scientific writing relies on good writing and there are very few, if any, writing techniques that are specific to scientific writing.
George Gopen is a noted expert in scientific writing, having co-authored an article on the subject and then offering lectures and workshops on scientific writing. Yet, when reading the article, you very quickly realize that his and Judith Swan's suggestions apply to any type of writing; they just use scientific prose as their examples.
I speak with some authority on this, because I have a degree in scientific and technical communication and was previously a Technical Writer. Today, I dug into the works and advice of three communication greats: George Gopen, Edward Tufte, and Steven Pinker. You may have noticed my switch from "writing" to "communication," and that's to enlarge our idea of good writing to include the visual communication we see on the page or screen. Below, I highlight an important takeaway from each scholar, but I begin with one tip with which they all agree.
Good writing in any genre is written for the audience
What is good writing? Well, certainly this is debated and contested, but as a writer, the only opinions that should matter are that of your audience. The question should be, "How do you communicate your ideas most clearly so that your reader can understand or even use the information?" The following tips can give us part of the answer.
Sentence Stress Position (George Gopen)
Gopen and Swan's article below focuses largely on the structure of the sentence, and one of the big takeaways that Gopen offers is to be aware of the stress position in a sentence. The stress position is the end of the sentence or clause, and intuitively where the reader looks for the most important information. As a quick example, I pulled language from an NSF abstract:
Original: Results from this research may be used to improve heat and mass transport models, frost heave models, and models of frozen soil creep by incorporating enhanced unfrozen water content functions, which will account for unfrozen water mobility and its dependence on soil-specific physicochemical properties.
Improved: Results from this research may be used to improve heat and mass transport models, frost heave models, and models of frozen soil creep by incorporating enhanced unfrozen water content functions.
You'll see that all I did was take off the part of sentence that seemed to fizzle. This information may be pertinent and require its own sentence, but in tagging it on to the original, we're putting less important information in the stress position. By removing it, we put the focus of the sentence back on the research results.
Visual Communication (Edward Tufte)
Edward Tufte points out that often times we write something and then add in visuals or charts and think of them separately. Yet, when a reader looks at the same page, they don't see them separately; it is one source of information. The title, the headings, the text, and diagrams, the graphs should all work together for the single purpose of communicating an idea to the reader as clearly as possible. This should tell you that not only is it a no-no to refer to a graph or chart that is found two pages later, but to also make sure no piece of your work distracts from your key points. And, when making decisions about how to communicate an idea, you should always choose the form (text or visual) that best communicates your idea.
Show, Don't Tell (Steven Pinker)
Steven Pinker makes the point that one makes a stronger argument and a more compelling read when one uses her text to illustrate the point, using examples, instead of telling the reader outright. The easiest way to say this is to avoid hyperbole. If something is excellent, don't tell the reader it's excellent, show them why it is and allow them to come to that conclusion. In grant-writing, it's essential for the Investigator to show why she is the best researcher to conduct the proposed project. She must do this by demonstrating her expertise and experience. She won't do herself any favors if she tells the reviewers that she is the best researcher for the job.
I hope these nuggets from some of the great communication experts can allow you to very quickly apply them to your scientific writing or whatever kind of visual communication you're working on! Stay tuned for more writing tips in the next few weeks.
Resources:
The Science of Scientific Writing - George Gopen and Judith Swan
Highlights from Edward Tufte Presentation - iSquared (video)
Steven Pinker on Good Writing - iSquared (video)
George Gopen is a noted expert in scientific writing, having co-authored an article on the subject and then offering lectures and workshops on scientific writing. Yet, when reading the article, you very quickly realize that his and Judith Swan's suggestions apply to any type of writing; they just use scientific prose as their examples.
I speak with some authority on this, because I have a degree in scientific and technical communication and was previously a Technical Writer. Today, I dug into the works and advice of three communication greats: George Gopen, Edward Tufte, and Steven Pinker. You may have noticed my switch from "writing" to "communication," and that's to enlarge our idea of good writing to include the visual communication we see on the page or screen. Below, I highlight an important takeaway from each scholar, but I begin with one tip with which they all agree.
Good writing in any genre is written for the audience
What is good writing? Well, certainly this is debated and contested, but as a writer, the only opinions that should matter are that of your audience. The question should be, "How do you communicate your ideas most clearly so that your reader can understand or even use the information?" The following tips can give us part of the answer.
Sentence Stress Position (George Gopen)
Gopen and Swan's article below focuses largely on the structure of the sentence, and one of the big takeaways that Gopen offers is to be aware of the stress position in a sentence. The stress position is the end of the sentence or clause, and intuitively where the reader looks for the most important information. As a quick example, I pulled language from an NSF abstract:
Original: Results from this research may be used to improve heat and mass transport models, frost heave models, and models of frozen soil creep by incorporating enhanced unfrozen water content functions, which will account for unfrozen water mobility and its dependence on soil-specific physicochemical properties.
Improved: Results from this research may be used to improve heat and mass transport models, frost heave models, and models of frozen soil creep by incorporating enhanced unfrozen water content functions.
You'll see that all I did was take off the part of sentence that seemed to fizzle. This information may be pertinent and require its own sentence, but in tagging it on to the original, we're putting less important information in the stress position. By removing it, we put the focus of the sentence back on the research results.
Visual Communication (Edward Tufte)
Edward Tufte points out that often times we write something and then add in visuals or charts and think of them separately. Yet, when a reader looks at the same page, they don't see them separately; it is one source of information. The title, the headings, the text, and diagrams, the graphs should all work together for the single purpose of communicating an idea to the reader as clearly as possible. This should tell you that not only is it a no-no to refer to a graph or chart that is found two pages later, but to also make sure no piece of your work distracts from your key points. And, when making decisions about how to communicate an idea, you should always choose the form (text or visual) that best communicates your idea.
Show, Don't Tell (Steven Pinker)
Steven Pinker makes the point that one makes a stronger argument and a more compelling read when one uses her text to illustrate the point, using examples, instead of telling the reader outright. The easiest way to say this is to avoid hyperbole. If something is excellent, don't tell the reader it's excellent, show them why it is and allow them to come to that conclusion. In grant-writing, it's essential for the Investigator to show why she is the best researcher to conduct the proposed project. She must do this by demonstrating her expertise and experience. She won't do herself any favors if she tells the reviewers that she is the best researcher for the job.
I hope these nuggets from some of the great communication experts can allow you to very quickly apply them to your scientific writing or whatever kind of visual communication you're working on! Stay tuned for more writing tips in the next few weeks.
Resources:
The Science of Scientific Writing - George Gopen and Judith Swan
Highlights from Edward Tufte Presentation - iSquared (video)
Steven Pinker on Good Writing - iSquared (video)
Friday, August 21, 2015
Establing Life Balance in Academe
As the academic year begins, many faculty members are throwing themselves fully back into the academy, but as the Chronicle of Higher Education's article on 'Serious Academics' at Play
suggests, it's just as important to continue to include in your daily life activities that you enjoy, and particularly physical activities to keep you healthy and sane and perhaps even more productive.
In this piece, Dr. Anne Kurzan, Professor of English at the University of Michigan, calls for the end to the "sink or swim" mentality that is often thrust upon new faculty and even graduate students, and instead advocates for a more balanced academic life that actually aids the "explosive productivity" expected in academe. In this same spirit, here are some practices to consider to keep you happy, healthy, and productive:
Make room for exercise and/or a hobby
Although you may think that there is no way you have time to exercise (and I'm certainly guilty of this) or doing the things you love, the truth is that when you don't make time for these things, that time is often wasted when you're banging your head against the wall with writer's block or spacing out when you need to be concentrating. By making time for yourself, you may find that you're able to be more focused on your work when it's time.
Schedule breaks
For the same reason described above (preventing space-out or writer's block), planning breaks help to keep you and your mind active. Artist and grant-writing guru, Gigi Rosenberg suggests taking a short break every 30 minutes that you write or work. She finds that even though she may not want to break after 30 minutes, she finds that with a short break, she is reinvigorated, and she's not away long enough that she needs to warm up again - she dives right in.
Establish boundaries
Dr. Jean Kutner, Professor in CU's School of Medicine and Head of General Internal Medicine, spoke at an ORDE seminar a couple of years ago and made the point that there is no such thing as work/life balance. "It's all life!" she said, although she was clear that this did not mean that your work should take over all aspects of your life. In that sense, researchers run into a particular challenge. Often, they set their own schedules and when all time is yours to delegate, it's easy to find yourself working at all hours of the day and night. To prevent the burnout that can come from this, set some boundaries; identify what's important to you and what relaxes you and set a schedule where there is room for all of those things.
Include balance in mentoring
The Chronicle article above also references a great mentoring article from 2013 by Dr. Kerry Ann Rockquemore who discusses the importance of communicating the importance of balance to mentees as well. Oftentimes, mentors who were tossed into the deep end as new Assistant Professors think that this is then the best way to mentor today's new Professors and/or grad students, but Rockquemore rightly insists that a better mentor approach is that of support for a more well-rounded academic life.
Although many folks who could benefit from this blog and the great articles referenced above may not read them in the hustle and bustle of the Fall, when they do catch their attention, hopefully, they will be inspired to make some small steps toward a healthy balance in academe.
Resources
'Serious Academics' at Play - Chronicle of Higher Education
A Mentoring Manifesto - Inside Higher Ed
Gigi Rosenberg's Blog
Jean Kutner's ORDE Talk : Charting Your Research Path
suggests, it's just as important to continue to include in your daily life activities that you enjoy, and particularly physical activities to keep you healthy and sane and perhaps even more productive.
In this piece, Dr. Anne Kurzan, Professor of English at the University of Michigan, calls for the end to the "sink or swim" mentality that is often thrust upon new faculty and even graduate students, and instead advocates for a more balanced academic life that actually aids the "explosive productivity" expected in academe. In this same spirit, here are some practices to consider to keep you happy, healthy, and productive:
Make room for exercise and/or a hobby
Although you may think that there is no way you have time to exercise (and I'm certainly guilty of this) or doing the things you love, the truth is that when you don't make time for these things, that time is often wasted when you're banging your head against the wall with writer's block or spacing out when you need to be concentrating. By making time for yourself, you may find that you're able to be more focused on your work when it's time.
Schedule breaks
For the same reason described above (preventing space-out or writer's block), planning breaks help to keep you and your mind active. Artist and grant-writing guru, Gigi Rosenberg suggests taking a short break every 30 minutes that you write or work. She finds that even though she may not want to break after 30 minutes, she finds that with a short break, she is reinvigorated, and she's not away long enough that she needs to warm up again - she dives right in.
Establish boundaries
Dr. Jean Kutner, Professor in CU's School of Medicine and Head of General Internal Medicine, spoke at an ORDE seminar a couple of years ago and made the point that there is no such thing as work/life balance. "It's all life!" she said, although she was clear that this did not mean that your work should take over all aspects of your life. In that sense, researchers run into a particular challenge. Often, they set their own schedules and when all time is yours to delegate, it's easy to find yourself working at all hours of the day and night. To prevent the burnout that can come from this, set some boundaries; identify what's important to you and what relaxes you and set a schedule where there is room for all of those things.
Include balance in mentoring
The Chronicle article above also references a great mentoring article from 2013 by Dr. Kerry Ann Rockquemore who discusses the importance of communicating the importance of balance to mentees as well. Oftentimes, mentors who were tossed into the deep end as new Assistant Professors think that this is then the best way to mentor today's new Professors and/or grad students, but Rockquemore rightly insists that a better mentor approach is that of support for a more well-rounded academic life.
Although many folks who could benefit from this blog and the great articles referenced above may not read them in the hustle and bustle of the Fall, when they do catch their attention, hopefully, they will be inspired to make some small steps toward a healthy balance in academe.
Resources
'Serious Academics' at Play - Chronicle of Higher Education
A Mentoring Manifesto - Inside Higher Ed
Gigi Rosenberg's Blog
Jean Kutner's ORDE Talk : Charting Your Research Path
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Fund Database Searching
A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned that CU Denver | AMC faculty were welcome to contact ORDE to have us conduct a personalized fund search, but for those of you who are not part of our faculty or those who want to do their own fund search anyway, this blog is intended to give you some fund searching tips.
To get started, you need to identify a fund database to search. ORDE relies most heavily on the InfoEdGlobal database: SPIN. If you are on a CU campus, you can access and search the database from any computer, or if you are part of the CU system you can VPN in from off campus to conduct a search.
Use Filters
The first thing you want to do in SPIN is set your filters appropriately. Filters range from choosing a specific applicant type, including whether you are a junior or senior faculty member, to being able to sort opportunities based on eligibility around citizenship. Using filters is a good way to cut down on the number of funding opportunities that are returned for which you may be ineligible or that are not applicable to you.
Use Google Principles
SPIN's search function is really quite intuitive and you can search the database using the same search strategies as you're used to with google. If you don't consider yourself a google search pro, you can quickly access the search tips by clicking help in SPIN
Consider Sponsor Speak
Most disciplines have their own language for things, but to make your search as comprehensive as possible, you want to spend some time finding different ways to describe your research in your search. Some potential sponsors may be looking to fund the type of research you're doing, but they use different language or come at it from a slightly different perspective. By rethinking the language you're using in your search, sometimes you can find new sponsors and opportunities.
Follow Through
Certainly, SPIN is an excellent fund database, but always staying on top of every sponsor's changes and updates is impossible, even for the most vigilant organization. Because of this, once you've found an opportunity, you're work is not yet done. You need to go directly to the sponsor's website to double check that you are indeed eligible for the program, that there are no new updates to the program announcement that you need to consider, and last but not least it's important to begin familiarizing yourself with the agency to which you think you'll apply. Unless you've worked with the agency before, you likely need to do some digging on the agency to make sure your eventual grant is well-aligned with their goals.
Resources:
SPIN page - InfoEdGlobal
To get started, you need to identify a fund database to search. ORDE relies most heavily on the InfoEdGlobal database: SPIN. If you are on a CU campus, you can access and search the database from any computer, or if you are part of the CU system you can VPN in from off campus to conduct a search.
Use Filters
The first thing you want to do in SPIN is set your filters appropriately. Filters range from choosing a specific applicant type, including whether you are a junior or senior faculty member, to being able to sort opportunities based on eligibility around citizenship. Using filters is a good way to cut down on the number of funding opportunities that are returned for which you may be ineligible or that are not applicable to you.
Use Google Principles
SPIN's search function is really quite intuitive and you can search the database using the same search strategies as you're used to with google. If you don't consider yourself a google search pro, you can quickly access the search tips by clicking help in SPIN
Consider Sponsor Speak
Most disciplines have their own language for things, but to make your search as comprehensive as possible, you want to spend some time finding different ways to describe your research in your search. Some potential sponsors may be looking to fund the type of research you're doing, but they use different language or come at it from a slightly different perspective. By rethinking the language you're using in your search, sometimes you can find new sponsors and opportunities.
Follow Through
Certainly, SPIN is an excellent fund database, but always staying on top of every sponsor's changes and updates is impossible, even for the most vigilant organization. Because of this, once you've found an opportunity, you're work is not yet done. You need to go directly to the sponsor's website to double check that you are indeed eligible for the program, that there are no new updates to the program announcement that you need to consider, and last but not least it's important to begin familiarizing yourself with the agency to which you think you'll apply. Unless you've worked with the agency before, you likely need to do some digging on the agency to make sure your eventual grant is well-aligned with their goals.
Resources:
SPIN page - InfoEdGlobal
Friday, August 7, 2015
Using Your Elevator Pitch Differently
Fall semester brings with it new students, new faculty, and other new faces. Whether you're new yourself, or you're welcoming the new folks, you want to make sure that people know what you and your research are about. This is why it's a good time to prepare or revisit your research elevator pitch.
An elevator pitch is a short spiel of what your research is and more importantly what difference it can make. The elevator pitch is a short speech (1-3 minutes) that can be given in an elevator ride. Although the elevator pitch has been a staple of self-promotion tactics, we actually think it makes more sense to develop an impromptu accordion conversation. Sure, it's not as catchy as elevator pitch, but hear me out.
An impromptu accordion conversation (IAC) is a conversation you might have at a reception or meeting that can be as short as a tag line but can grow to include a substantive discussion of why your work is important. Just like the accordion can expand and contract, if you plan for a conversation that can make your case in bite-sized pieces, you can allow your conversation partner to direct how they understand your research and when and how much you draw out the accordion of explanation.
Imagine you meet a Program Officer (not quite in your area) at a conference reception, and they ask what you do.You begin with your tagline, a single sentence that sums up your research. Example: I look at how to increase memory retention of Physics students. Your tagline should be short and communicate your research in a clear and action-oriented way.
You should use your tagline to generate interest and a question in your conversation partner. For instance, they ask you, "What sort of things do you want Physics students to retain?" You then have an opportunity to describe the problem that your research is trying to solve and give the questioner a fuller sense of you and your work. And the bonus is that your conversation partner is an active listener at this point because they asked the question and they're interested in knowing more. With a more traditional elevator pitch, if you rattle off your pitch, there's no telling if the person you're talking to is listening or cares about what you're trying to pitch them.
Aside from having a tag line and explanations that focus on the impact of your research, your IAC should also include a call to action. Don't forget to also ask your conversation partner what they do and if there is an opportunity for collaboration or support, find ways to continue the conversation. For example, going back to our Program Officer example, perhaps you ask, "Could I send you a copy of my concept paper to see if you could point me in the right direction with whom I should talk to about funding?" or "Would you mind connecting me with your colleague in this area?" and then follow-up with an email.
So, as you prepare for the new faces and meetings this Fall, be sure to polish off your elevator pitch, or better yet, prepare an Impromptu Accordion Conversation.
Resources:
The Elevator Pitch: Presenting Your Research in Conversation - University of Notre Dame
Elevator Pitches for Scientists - The Postdoc Way
An elevator pitch is a short spiel of what your research is and more importantly what difference it can make. The elevator pitch is a short speech (1-3 minutes) that can be given in an elevator ride. Although the elevator pitch has been a staple of self-promotion tactics, we actually think it makes more sense to develop an impromptu accordion conversation. Sure, it's not as catchy as elevator pitch, but hear me out.
An impromptu accordion conversation (IAC) is a conversation you might have at a reception or meeting that can be as short as a tag line but can grow to include a substantive discussion of why your work is important. Just like the accordion can expand and contract, if you plan for a conversation that can make your case in bite-sized pieces, you can allow your conversation partner to direct how they understand your research and when and how much you draw out the accordion of explanation.
Imagine you meet a Program Officer (not quite in your area) at a conference reception, and they ask what you do.You begin with your tagline, a single sentence that sums up your research. Example: I look at how to increase memory retention of Physics students. Your tagline should be short and communicate your research in a clear and action-oriented way.
You should use your tagline to generate interest and a question in your conversation partner. For instance, they ask you, "What sort of things do you want Physics students to retain?" You then have an opportunity to describe the problem that your research is trying to solve and give the questioner a fuller sense of you and your work. And the bonus is that your conversation partner is an active listener at this point because they asked the question and they're interested in knowing more. With a more traditional elevator pitch, if you rattle off your pitch, there's no telling if the person you're talking to is listening or cares about what you're trying to pitch them.
Aside from having a tag line and explanations that focus on the impact of your research, your IAC should also include a call to action. Don't forget to also ask your conversation partner what they do and if there is an opportunity for collaboration or support, find ways to continue the conversation. For example, going back to our Program Officer example, perhaps you ask, "Could I send you a copy of my concept paper to see if you could point me in the right direction with whom I should talk to about funding?" or "Would you mind connecting me with your colleague in this area?" and then follow-up with an email.
So, as you prepare for the new faces and meetings this Fall, be sure to polish off your elevator pitch, or better yet, prepare an Impromptu Accordion Conversation.
Resources:
The Elevator Pitch: Presenting Your Research in Conversation - University of Notre Dame
Elevator Pitches for Scientists - The Postdoc Way
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)