Defining the Need

Generally, as you are developing your grants, you may be focusing on the difference your research will make or the impact your project will have. This makes good sense, but it is important that you do not neglect to discuss the need you are addressing in your haste to describe the solution.

Oftentimes, PI's assume that reviewers will understand the need for their research and therefore intuit the significance of their work. However, even if your reviewers do understand the problem you are addressing, they likely do not understand how big or complicated the problem you are addressing is.

Thus, before you jump to your solution, give the problem some attention. The Center for Nonprofit Excellence suggests in their CNPE Toolkit - The Needs Statement that to define the need for your project, you should address the following:

• What is the problem?
• Why is it a problem? Who does it affect?
• What is the cost of not addressing the problem? (financial, human, social, quality of life, etc.)
• Why is it difficult to address the problem? (what are the anticipated barriers?)
• Why does it need to be addressed now?
• How would your project address the problem? And, how will the sponsor's funding really make a difference?
• How does it affect real people? Is there a human interest story to make the problem and solution more compelling?

Again, don't assume that your reviewers know all or any of these things. Dr. Amy Brooks-Kayal, Chief and Ponzio Chair Chair in Pediatric Neurology, shared in an ORDE seminar last year that she begins her grant by sharing the national statistics in Epilepsy, including how many people are affected and how they are affected (it's not just seizures). Then later on in her grant, she'll describe global statistics to emphasize the largess of the problem without repeating the information she shared earlier on.

Now, this might go without saying, but to write a compelling description of needs in your research, you have to really understand the needs yourself. In their new book, Developing a Winning Grant Proposal, Donald Orlich and Nancy Shrope suggest that PI's use any of the following methods to assess needs before designing a project:

• Use testimonials from relevant stakeholders
• Committee reports
• Planning documents
• Literature reviews
• Statements from professional/scientific societies

Although their suggestions are focused on education research projects, their suggestions still make sense for many disciplines. Remember, that when it comes to conducting a literature review, there are librarians available to help you form and execute a comprehensive literature review at the Auraria Library and the Health Sciences Library

In addition to using these or other methods, it is also a good idea to look at relevant project descriptions from grants that have been funded to make sure you are not proposing to duplicate the same work, especially with the same sponsor.

Remember that without adequately describing the problem or need that your research addresses, you cannot clearly show the impact and significance of your solution!

Tis the Season of Giving: The Research Development Perspective

Tis the season of giving. In the United States, the winter holiday and end of the calendar year generally inspire Americans to make donations to or volunteer with local charities or causes they are passionate about. This is particularly the case this year, where Holiday giving has boosted year end giving to 17% above what we saw in 2012, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Certainly, this is lovely to witness and be a part of, but from a research grant development perspective, this giving time provides us an opportunity to understand how and why people give and offers us some insight into research sponsors and grant reviewers as well.

So, below I offer some reasons for giving and what aspects we can apply to grant development.

It's for a good cause.
This is often on the lips of donors when asked why they've gotten out their checkbook. But, it's also why sponsors and reviewers award money to researchers. A good cause is not named that because it is simply the neediest. It is a good cause because it is able to show the impact, or the change they can make in the community or the world because of funding.

I want to make a difference.
Although they may not realize it, donors do not tend to give to a cause that looks like every other cause on the block. The cause they give to must stand out, appeal to them, and really be something special, something different. So too is the case for sponsors; they want to fund unique and innovative projects that have the potential to be a game changer.

I want to give back to the community.
When it comes to individual giving, Americans give the most money to their church, temple, or place of worship. Although this might suggest a high level of religious devotion and commitment, at least part of the reason that these religious organizations bring in more individual donations is due to the community and level of engagement they have amongst their participants. In the fundraising world, there is a recognition that engagement and giving go hand-in-hand.

So, how does this apply to grant development? Well, the first is in the relationship side of grant development. Engaging and involving a Program Officer in your project idea and incorporating their feedback into your project and your grant can create an advocate in your Program Officer for your project. Additionally, find ways to engage your reviewers in your grant. You want to feel that they have an important role to play in funding your vital and exciting research.

There are likely many more connections and insights we can glean from individual donors that can help us in the grants world. And, as you make charitable donations or notice others making gifts this season, dig into the how and the why to see what it yields for your next grant.

Additional Resources:
Porter, R. (2009). Can we talk? Contacting program officers. Research Management Review, 17(1)

The Biosketch - it's all about you!

As we are in the holiday season, you are likely trying to focus on your spirit of giving.  So, I thought I would offer you some indulgence by talking about you and your biosketch. You are welcome!

Earlier this year, Dr. Amy Brooks-Kayal, our Chief and Ponzio Chair in Pediatric Neurology at Children’s Hospital, and Professor at AMC, spoke to us about the importance of the NIH biosketch. As a long-time grant reviewer and study section head, she thinks many PI’s overlook it.

Dr. Brooks-Kayal reminded us that when reviewers receive a pdf of a grant proposal, one of the first things they see, after the project summary and budget, is the PI’s biosketch. She suggested, “People don’t always pay as much attention to the biosketches as they should. Those are one of the first things your reviewers read so you want to make sure those are as strong as possible. If for some reason it’s not as strong as it should be, try to help your reviewers understand why in [the biosketch personal statement].”

She expanded on the fact that some PI’s have a lapse in their productivity due to a career shift, for example, and that the PI should be forthright about why they have had a lapse by using the personal statement portion of the Biosketch to explain. She also suggested having a mentor acknowledge the reasons for any lapse in productivity in their letters of support, but to remember that reviewers do not generally read those letters till the very end of their grant review.

 

Along with this idea of including justification in your biosketch, Dr. Morgan Giddings, Ph.D., suggests that PI’s tell a story with their biosketch in her blog, and really define the big problem you are trying to solve in your research – what is your long-term vision (not just this project)?

I must note that Dr. Giddings suggests that PI’s not include justification for a productivity lapse unless it can strengthen your application, so weigh the pros and cons and consider how your reviewers will receive your justification before putting it in there.

Unfortunately, not all agencies allow for a personal statement in the PI biosketch. For instance, the NSF does not have a clear mechanism for this sort of information right now, and it is relatively new for NIH as well. Our Senior Grants Administrator, Stefan Reiss, suggested that NSF applicants may be able to weave in some personal statement information into the Synergistic Activities section of their biosketch, but added that it is always a good idea to check with your Program Officer if you have specific questions about where to place information in your grant when it is not clear.

For our PI’s out there, please weigh in with your tips or rules of thumb for biosketches!

Also, to learn more about a new tool that the NIH is developing to streamline biosketches, see Dr. Sally Rockey’s blog.

Resources:
Dr. Gidding's blog on biosketches: http://morganonscience.com/grantwriting/crafting-your-nih-biosketch-personal-narrative/

Dr. Rockey's NIH blog on biosketch tool updates:
http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2013/11/20/test-drive-sciencv/?utm_source=nexus&utm_medium=email&utm_content=nihupdate&utm_campaign=nov13

 

Some Grant Writing Tips

I have realized over the past few weeks, that I have a decent list of persuasive writing tips/techniques that I don't think I've put out in the blogosphere before, so below are a few of them. These tips are particularly pertinent to your project summary, since that is where your reviewer will start and will sometimes make the decision of whether to read the rest of your grant or not.

Grant Writing Tips:

1. Take advantage of primacy and recency, meaning readers tend to remember what they read first and what they read last, so make the first and last sentence of your project summary count - really drive home your most important point!
2. Reinforce your most important points. Do not assume that after you have said it once, your reader will remember it and understand how key it is. Say it again in another way when it is time to remind them.
3. Use images and conceptual diagrams. You may not be able to have these in your project summary, but a picture is worth a thousand words, and a meaningful image that ties things together for your reader will help reviewers remember your proposal.
4. Use buzzwords, not jargon. You want to speak the same language as your sponsor, so research them and incorporate the words and phrases that they think are important into your grant. Jargon on the other hand is technical speak that may not make sense to all of your reviewers.
5. Vary your sentence length. This makes for a more dynamic read.
6. Favor the active voice whenever possible.
7. Use headings and white space.
8. Anticipate your reader's questions and answer them as you go. They will be distracted from what you are trying to say if they have a list of questions building up in their heads.
9. Use examples and metaphors to illustrate your point.
10. Always remember who you are writing to and give them what they want!

What are your writing rules? Or better yet, if you have been a grant reviewer, what are your pet peeves?

Asking People for Money: A Girl Scout Analogy

Do you get girl scouts selling cookies in your neighborhood? Are you happy to see them when that time rolls around? Maybe you are and maybe you're not, but you likely are comfortable with them checking to see if you want any cookies, even if it does threaten to ruin your healthy diet.

Now, imagine how you would feel if you started to get three or four sets of girl scouts knocking on your door trying to sell you cookies - how would you feel then? It would probably get annoying having to tell each set of girls that you already bought cookies from other scouts, and it might even lead you to swear off buying cookies altogether in hopes that a girl scout would never grace your doorway again.

I heard a colleague use this analogy today to describe why it was important for those faculty researchers looking for funding from individuals or local private foundations to work with the CU Foundation. Our foundation manages our relationships with donors and foundations in the area to make sure that we are not overwhelming them with requests for funding and are only putting projects in front of them that are a perfect match with their mission and goals, thus making it more likely that CU will be funded in some capacity.

Now, happily, when applying for grant funding from federal sponsors in response to an RFP or program announcement, any researcher from the University can usually respond. But, even though it is easier to ask directly for money from these sponsors, it would serve us well to still bear in mind the relationship and fit aspect that is crucial in asking individuals or local foundations for money.

You must understand what your sponsor wants and what their major goals are and then offer them a grant proposal that fulfills all of their dreams and some of yours. Now this may seem a little counter intuitive to what you thought you were trying to do - fund your project. As one faculty member said, partly in jest, "I don't want a lot, I just want everything!" Now, at ORDE, we want our faculty to have everything when it comes to funding their research, but we also realize that everything comes with time to those who are strategic...

Unfortunately, most faculty members do not have their own foundation whose purpose is to fund their research agenda. Therefore, researchers must take baby steps toward their goals. One must write grants that fulfill all of the needs of the sponsor and can further their own research agenda in a smaller way. Even though this can be frustrating, the good news is that in the funding world, money attracts money. As a researcher builds their research and funding portfolio, they show their current and future sponsors that they are worth investing in and can begin to move their work more and more in alignment with their own research goals and agenda. But, again, it takes some time to build rapport with any sort of donor, including federal sponsors.

Know Your Agency: The American Heart Association

ORDE piloted a new series this fall, entitled, “Know Your Agency (KYA) Lunches.” For years, ORDE has offered Know Your Agency briefs on particular agencies of interest to our faculty. Now, to further understanding and facilitate Q&A around these agencies, KYA Lunches provide opportunities for faculty experts with experience and success in getting funding from an agency to give brief presentations and lead follow-up discussions on the agencies.

In early November, our KYA lunch focused on the American Heart Association (AHA) and Professor and Chair, Robert Eckel, former President of the AHA gave a presentation and answered a host of questions for both AMC and Denver Campus faculty who were interested in pursuing funding with the AHA. Dr. Eckel encouraged the participants, saying, “You can really spread your wings [with the AHA] from very basic to clinical to population science in almost anything that you could connect to cardiovascular disease. And that’s really grantspersonship isn’t it? How we write grant applications relates to the agency we’re applying to.”

As part of the Know Your Agency Lunch on AHA, ORDE put together a two-page brief on the AHA for grant-seekers: http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/research/AboutUs/ORDE/funding/Pages/KYASeries.aspx

Also, at the link above are briefs on the following agencies:

• Air Force Office of Scientific Research
• BrightFocus Foundation
• Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation
• National Endowment for the Humanities

Understanding an agency, their goals, ideologies, and preferred approaches are crucial before you begin writing your grant. These briefs and KYA lunches are a first step in researching your target sponsor, but you should also review the projects that the sponsor has funded in the past to understand some of the trends and nuances of the sponsor and their grant reviewers.

Please suggest other agencies you are interested in applying to in the comments area.

 

 

What's in a Name? Titling Your Grant Proposal

Pardon my cliché title, but since this is a blog, I just cannot help myself with some of my dubiously clever titles! However, I do think that this gives us an example of a title that makes sense for a blog, but the tone of which would not be appropriate for a grant proposal.

Here is why. As I consider my blog title(s), I first think about you, my audience. I assume that you are faculty researchers, mainly at the CU Denver and Anschutz Medical Campuses. I assume that you are busy and are looking for some strategies and tips to improve your grant development and/or honing your research projects to appeal to funders. When this title pops up in your RSS feed, I'm trying to communicate two things to you.

1. That this won't be a horribly boring or overly technical blog post through my initial overused Shakespearean pun.
2. That this blog is about grant titling through the latter half of the title

For those of you who would like "just the facts ma'am," and are not interested in the background information, you have likely skipped to the tips at the very bottom. For those of you who are reading the whole thing, I take you on my brief mental journey to illustrate the very process to use in creating a title for your grant.

So, your grant and its title is for your peer reviewers. Who are they? What environment are they reading in? And, what is their goal in reading your grant?

Who: Usually other faculty researchers, but not necessarily if you are applying to a private foundation.

Environment: When they find a spare moment in the day or on the plane ride out to the review session they are trying to get through all the grants they have been assigned.

Goal: Understand all the grants they have been assigned to make a decision on which to support.

Now, as you see, entertainment or deeply contemplating new phraseology is not what reviewers are looking for, so we must develop titles that best facilitate the goals of our audience. Grant titles should be concise and descriptive. These two words might seem in opposition, but it really just means, every word has to count and we have to choose the title that best gives an understanding of what is most important in our grant.

In addition to always rooting yourself in your reader's needs and interests when making writing decisions, below are some quick tips for grant titling:

ORDE's Titling Tips:

• Review titles of funded projects by your sponsor (warning: do not assume these titles are the best, but consider your impression of the project based on the title)
• Be original and relevant (look up the hot language used by the sponsor and see if it fits with your concept)
• Be accurate and use agency-friendly keywords
• Use results/impact-driven words instead of describing a process
• Be authoritative (Questions, although they may seem intriguing can imply yours is an exploratory, risky, or questionable project)
• Only use abbreviations that are better understood by the reader (e.g., DNA)
• Use active verbs (e.g., remodeling, reconstructing, creating, etc.)
• Use plain language (remember, get the point across clearly)
• Get feedback from colleagues and your program officer
• Proofread your title along with everything else
• Use the same title in resubmittals so your reviewers know to focus on your changes

 
Resources:
Murder Most Foul: How Not to Kill a Grant Application
Research Paper Titles in Literature, Linguistics, and Science: Dimensions of Attraction