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)