I've certainly pestered you about including visuals in your grants in previous blogs, but I recently gathered more fodder, so I bring it back once again. A year ago, I heard one of our faculty members who was a long time NIH reviewer say he had never seen a grant funded that did not include a visual in the Specific Aims. This floored me and I began sharing this anecdote in all of our seminars. Some argued that they had seen grants funded without visuals, but still to have one long-time reviewer make such a strong statement about visuals? I was sold!
Given my grant-visual evangelizing tendency, I was very excited to get more information on why these visuals in grant applications are important a couple weeks ago. Dr. Bob Murphy, Distinguished Professor of Pharmacology on our Anschutz Medical Campus, gave a talk at our seminar on the NIH Review Process. Dr. Murphy described how those assigned as primary, secondary, and tertiary reviewers on a grant application are usually the only folks who will read the proposal. When a proposal is discussed in a study section meeting, those assigned to a proposal present the proposal and their review to the entire group. At this time, the specific aims pop up on a computer screen for the rest of the reviewers. As a reminder, all reviewers submit scores for each grant application, and most have not read the applications themselves before they are asked to score them.
Dr. Murphy stressed that when a grant is being discussed that has not been assigned to you as a reviewer, you're trying to listen to the presentations of those to whom it was assigned. Although you have the specific aims pulled up on a computer, you really don't have the time to read prose. You instead depend on the assigned reviewers to explain it. However, although you can't read prose, you can look at a visual that has been strategically placed in the specific aims (you knew this was coming).
If a clear visual helps your reviewer to understand your project and make sense of the presentation/review of your colleague, they're more apt to realize the true brilliance of the project and score it accordingly.
Resources:
How to use visuals in grants - Grant writing for dummies
The incorporation of visuals into grants - Platte
Monday, March 21, 2016
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Storytelling in your grant
This week, ORDE offered a panel on Positioning Your Work and Yourself at our Anschutz Medical Campus. Our panelists included Kathrin Bernt, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, Dana Dabelea, Professor of Epidemiology and Pediatrics, and Anne Libby, Professor of Emergency Medicine. One of the themes that arose in our discussion was the idea of story-telling as a great tool for branding yourself, and especially in your grant. Below are some different ways to use storytelling in your grant.
Tell your story
This idea of storytelling can manifest in some different ways. Some researchers have been successful in sharing their story in a grant. As Dr. Libby suggested, this is a particularly useful strategy when applying for a career development type grant, such as an NIH K grant. For these, sharing your passion and explaining your personal career trajectory can give reviewers a solid sense of who you are and your potential. Reviewers are likely to advocate for a career grant when they have a sense of the applicant and their great potential.
Tell your patient's story
Another approach to storytelling is to integrate patient stories into your grant. If you're able to tie the results of your research to potentially alleviating trauma for your patients, you take your case for your research a step further to not only show the impacts of your work, but to personalize them.
Make your research a story
Dr. Bernt cautioned the group about the use of personal story when it will not make you unique. If you're hearing the same type of story again and again in a grant or in any other venue, it loses its power. However, if a personal story is not going to resonate with reviewers for whatever reason, you can still incorporate story-telling into your grant. This can be done by identifying what makes narrative compelling, things like context and the hook. Certainly, the importance of giving context to your reviewers so they can stick with you is important, but also creating a hook that grabs your reviewers, and invests them in your research story is also smart.
Tell someone else's story
Upon leaving, one of our faculty members shared with us her struggle to use storytelling in her grants. Her research focused on a health issue that wasn't necessarily life threatening, and she had no personal or patient stories that would work. Yet, she found compelling stories on the blogs of those afflicted by the issue or the parents of those afflicted. She was able to translate these stories and concerns into her grants and has found success with this approach. I thought this was a particularly creative strategy.
So, don't be afraid to tell a story in your grant whether it's yours, your patient's, your research's or someone else's. It will make you real and likable in the eyes of reviewers.
Resources
How to win grants with great storytelling - The Grant Training Center
The clues to a great story - Andrew Stanton TED talk
Tell your story
This idea of storytelling can manifest in some different ways. Some researchers have been successful in sharing their story in a grant. As Dr. Libby suggested, this is a particularly useful strategy when applying for a career development type grant, such as an NIH K grant. For these, sharing your passion and explaining your personal career trajectory can give reviewers a solid sense of who you are and your potential. Reviewers are likely to advocate for a career grant when they have a sense of the applicant and their great potential.
Tell your patient's story
Another approach to storytelling is to integrate patient stories into your grant. If you're able to tie the results of your research to potentially alleviating trauma for your patients, you take your case for your research a step further to not only show the impacts of your work, but to personalize them.
Make your research a story
Dr. Bernt cautioned the group about the use of personal story when it will not make you unique. If you're hearing the same type of story again and again in a grant or in any other venue, it loses its power. However, if a personal story is not going to resonate with reviewers for whatever reason, you can still incorporate story-telling into your grant. This can be done by identifying what makes narrative compelling, things like context and the hook. Certainly, the importance of giving context to your reviewers so they can stick with you is important, but also creating a hook that grabs your reviewers, and invests them in your research story is also smart.
Tell someone else's story
Upon leaving, one of our faculty members shared with us her struggle to use storytelling in her grants. Her research focused on a health issue that wasn't necessarily life threatening, and she had no personal or patient stories that would work. Yet, she found compelling stories on the blogs of those afflicted by the issue or the parents of those afflicted. She was able to translate these stories and concerns into her grants and has found success with this approach. I thought this was a particularly creative strategy.
So, don't be afraid to tell a story in your grant whether it's yours, your patient's, your research's or someone else's. It will make you real and likable in the eyes of reviewers.
Resources
How to win grants with great storytelling - The Grant Training Center
The clues to a great story - Andrew Stanton TED talk
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
NIH K Awards
The NIH's Career Development Awards (or K awards) are generally mentored awards designed to move an early career investigator, in need of mentoring, to an independent investigator, successfully competing for an R01 (ideally) by the end of their K award.
There are some exceptions to this K description. K24s for instance are designed for midcareer investigators. However, the majority of K awards are mentored awards, including the K99/R00, K01, K08, K23, and K25. For mentored awards, the following are generally true:
The chart above from the NIH gives a sense of the appropriate timing for applying within one's career trajectory. At the post-doctoral level, the K99/R00 is designed for post-docs looking to transition to independent or tenure-track positions at an institution different from where they did their postdoc. The K01 is a mentored research scientist award. The K08, the mentored clinical scientist development award, is designed for MD's who want to become bench scientists.
The K23 is the mentored patient-oriented research career development award and the K25, the mentored quantitative research career development award is designed for PhD's in Engineering who want to transition to the Biological Sciences.
The important thing to remember when applying for the NIH mentored career awards is that they are for folks who would not be considered independent investigators. Those who successfully compete for an R01 or other major independent award are ineligible. But, the applicant must also show their need for mentoring and additional training, and show reviewers how a K investment in them will move them from a promising start to realize their full potential as an independent investigator after being mentored and trained during their K award.
Resources:
NIH K Kiosk
There are some exceptions to this K description. K24s for instance are designed for midcareer investigators. However, the majority of K awards are mentored awards, including the K99/R00, K01, K08, K23, and K25. For mentored awards, the following are generally true:
- They require 75% protected time
- Generally the awards range from 3-5 years
- There are no renewals
- There is a salary cap (95K for K08s and K23s and 105K for K02s)
The chart above from the NIH gives a sense of the appropriate timing for applying within one's career trajectory. At the post-doctoral level, the K99/R00 is designed for post-docs looking to transition to independent or tenure-track positions at an institution different from where they did their postdoc. The K01 is a mentored research scientist award. The K08, the mentored clinical scientist development award, is designed for MD's who want to become bench scientists.
The K23 is the mentored patient-oriented research career development award and the K25, the mentored quantitative research career development award is designed for PhD's in Engineering who want to transition to the Biological Sciences.
The important thing to remember when applying for the NIH mentored career awards is that they are for folks who would not be considered independent investigators. Those who successfully compete for an R01 or other major independent award are ineligible. But, the applicant must also show their need for mentoring and additional training, and show reviewers how a K investment in them will move them from a promising start to realize their full potential as an independent investigator after being mentored and trained during their K award.
Resources:
NIH K Kiosk
Friday, February 12, 2016
Positioning Yourself for Tenure & for Grants
This week, ORDE hosted a panel of faculty on the Denver campus to discuss how to position oneself for tenure and in grant applications. Our panel included Bob Damrauer, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research; Donna Sobel, Associate Professor Emerita in Special Education; and Kat Vlahos, Professor and Chair of Architecture. The panel offered many important insights and takeaways to participants, and below are some highlights:
Write clearly:
Dr. Damrauer began the conversation, saying, "I only have one thing to say...The most important single skill you need in order to succeed in an academic career is to write well. Learn what a simple declarative sentence is and use it." As we've seen, many faculty members get quite a way through their career only speaking to and writing for those in their field, but they face an eventual barrier when they come to the point where they need to illustrate the importance of their work to someone besides their immediate colleagues.
Integrate and distinguish:
Dr. Vlahos stressed that when presenting your case for tenure and/or promotion, you must be able to both integrate your work in research, teaching, and service, but also be able to speak about them distinctly. In this way, you can clearly show your work and accomplishments in each area, as well as tell the story of your work as a whole.
Organize your work:
Dr. Sobel made the point that when you have people reviewing your work, be they reviewers for your grant or dossier, "Don't make them look for it!" When folks are reviewing scores of applications, there is little that is more frustrating than when they can't find what they need to assess your work. Needless to say, you don't want to frustrate someone who is reviewing your case for tenure or your grant application. Dr. Vlahos reiterated this, saying that one of the greatest strengths of her dossier was its clear organization.
Offer context:
All of the panelists talked about the importance of bringing your reader/reviewer up to speed. You should not assume that they understand your jargon, that they know your history, or even your perspective. Be explicit and tell your story so that that your work can make sense to a broad audience.
Throughout the discussion, the panel stressed the importance of seeking mentorship and getting help when you need it. Resources include ORDE, The Office of Research Services, and the Center for Faculty Development. We're happy to help!
Resources:
Elevator Pitch Video - NSF
Ask the right questions - Inside Higher Ed
Write clearly:
Dr. Damrauer began the conversation, saying, "I only have one thing to say...The most important single skill you need in order to succeed in an academic career is to write well. Learn what a simple declarative sentence is and use it." As we've seen, many faculty members get quite a way through their career only speaking to and writing for those in their field, but they face an eventual barrier when they come to the point where they need to illustrate the importance of their work to someone besides their immediate colleagues.
Integrate and distinguish:
Dr. Vlahos stressed that when presenting your case for tenure and/or promotion, you must be able to both integrate your work in research, teaching, and service, but also be able to speak about them distinctly. In this way, you can clearly show your work and accomplishments in each area, as well as tell the story of your work as a whole.
Organize your work:
Dr. Sobel made the point that when you have people reviewing your work, be they reviewers for your grant or dossier, "Don't make them look for it!" When folks are reviewing scores of applications, there is little that is more frustrating than when they can't find what they need to assess your work. Needless to say, you don't want to frustrate someone who is reviewing your case for tenure or your grant application. Dr. Vlahos reiterated this, saying that one of the greatest strengths of her dossier was its clear organization.
Offer context:
All of the panelists talked about the importance of bringing your reader/reviewer up to speed. You should not assume that they understand your jargon, that they know your history, or even your perspective. Be explicit and tell your story so that that your work can make sense to a broad audience.
Throughout the discussion, the panel stressed the importance of seeking mentorship and getting help when you need it. Resources include ORDE, The Office of Research Services, and the Center for Faculty Development. We're happy to help!
Resources:
Elevator Pitch Video - NSF
Ask the right questions - Inside Higher Ed
Friday, February 5, 2016
Writing into Clarity
This week I read a piece by Laurel Richardson on Writing as a method of inquiry in The Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edition in which she discusses the process of learning and indeed developing research within the writing process. She offers various methods to seize on writing as a method in and of itself, but in addition to helping me see writing as a research method, the piece reminded me of the power of writing toward clarity.
I'm a terrible test-taker, I won't take the time to prove it to you with the less-than-stellar scores I've chalked up, but really my only saving grace in my testing years (hopefully, they're behind me now), was the essay question. In high school and college, when confronted with an essay question, I would inevitably draw a blank, begin to hyperventilate, and start to write. I would rewrite the question and reframe the argument being described, using only slightly different wording than the original question. But, as I wrote a ridiculous and overly circuitous introduction to my response, something magical would happen. I would remember a concept, I would come up with a new perspective, and the answer would begin to unfold. It became commonplace to get comments back from instructors that would say, "Not sure where you're going here" at the beginning, but then turn to "Excellent point!" and "Well said!" as I got to the conclusion.
I offer this trip down my memory lane not just to reminisce but to speak to the power of writing into clarity and even into realization. Depending on your discipline and your practice, writing may be like breathing for you or it may be a tumultuous relationship, one of dread and avoidance. If you place yourself in the latter group, you may want to rethink your relationship with writing and to see it more as a tool for clarity and idea development. You might keep a journal or a blog to reflect on your work, both the breakthroughs and conundrums, to see if you're able to write into new meaning or out of a sticking point.
As I bring it all back to grant development (you knew I would), when you have been writing about your research regularly, you will likely find that when you sit down to describe your project in a grant or to a colleague, it flows a bit more easily. Perhaps it is easier to illustrate why your project is compelling because you have been wrestling with this in your writing previously.
Our slogan for the upcoming workshop on Scientific Writing, in conjunction with the CCTSI and The Writing Center is "Keep calm and write on." So, that is the sentiment I will leave you with for today, whether you're a nervous freshman or a top researcher and scholar.
Resources:
Writing: A Method of Inquiry - Richardson and St. Pierre
I'm a terrible test-taker, I won't take the time to prove it to you with the less-than-stellar scores I've chalked up, but really my only saving grace in my testing years (hopefully, they're behind me now), was the essay question. In high school and college, when confronted with an essay question, I would inevitably draw a blank, begin to hyperventilate, and start to write. I would rewrite the question and reframe the argument being described, using only slightly different wording than the original question. But, as I wrote a ridiculous and overly circuitous introduction to my response, something magical would happen. I would remember a concept, I would come up with a new perspective, and the answer would begin to unfold. It became commonplace to get comments back from instructors that would say, "Not sure where you're going here" at the beginning, but then turn to "Excellent point!" and "Well said!" as I got to the conclusion.
I offer this trip down my memory lane not just to reminisce but to speak to the power of writing into clarity and even into realization. Depending on your discipline and your practice, writing may be like breathing for you or it may be a tumultuous relationship, one of dread and avoidance. If you place yourself in the latter group, you may want to rethink your relationship with writing and to see it more as a tool for clarity and idea development. You might keep a journal or a blog to reflect on your work, both the breakthroughs and conundrums, to see if you're able to write into new meaning or out of a sticking point.
As I bring it all back to grant development (you knew I would), when you have been writing about your research regularly, you will likely find that when you sit down to describe your project in a grant or to a colleague, it flows a bit more easily. Perhaps it is easier to illustrate why your project is compelling because you have been wrestling with this in your writing previously.
Our slogan for the upcoming workshop on Scientific Writing, in conjunction with the CCTSI and The Writing Center is "Keep calm and write on." So, that is the sentiment I will leave you with for today, whether you're a nervous freshman or a top researcher and scholar.
Resources:
Writing: A Method of Inquiry - Richardson and St. Pierre
Friday, January 29, 2016
Peer Review - before you submit
It can be extremely frustrating to read reviewer comments on your grant application when you have been turned down for funding. But, one way to alleviate surprises that may show up in reviewer comments is to engage a network of reviewers before you submit. Below are some recommendations for selecting and recruiting internal reviewers.
Aim for three
ORDE suggests that PIs try to find at least three people to review their grants before submitting. This gives you a nice diversity of perspectives and ups your chances that you'll hear some feedback that will allow you to revise your application in such a way that you don't hear that same feedback in your agency review.
Choose the right level of reviewer expertise
Certainly, you want to have people with the right expertise to emulate those who will review your grant at an agency. Look for folks in your field who will be familiar with the concepts you're using, but not those who are so close to the project (e.g., Co PIs) that they may overlook some of the same problems in your application that you've overlooked.
Find a layperson
We've heard several seasoned PIs say that they have a family member (a grandma, a daughter, a spouse, etc.) review their proposal before submitting. These generous family members are able to give feedback on whether your argument is clear, if you've adequately described the need for your research, and whether the proposal includes too much jargon. This is a useful perspective, especially if the agency you're submitting to may include lay people as reviewers.
Give direction
I've found that at times when I ask a colleague to review my writing, if I'm not clear with them on what I want, they sometimes go through and simply identify grammatical and/or spelling errors. This is certainly helpful, but not until I have a fairly final product. But, when folks don't know what to look for, they often focus on the little things. So, give your reviewers direction. Depending on how busy they are, you may want to send one piece of your proposal to a colleague or friend and have them assess one aspect, such as whether you've shown the potential impact of your project clearly and compellingly.
Give time and a heads up
Those in the grants game know that even when you start early, time is always of the essence when you're developing an application. Yet, if you want to adequately use internal reviewers before you submit, and you want them to continue talking to you, it's important to give them time. Even before you have something to review, it's a good idea to identify those you want to review your application and ask them if they're willing. Then let them know when to expect a draft and when you need it back (giving them a week is usually appropriate). Lastly, make sure that you have enough time to really use their feedback. If they give you comments, you need to make sure you have time to incorporate them in a revision, otherwise it's all for naught.
Resources
ORDE can help! If you are faculty member for CU Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus, Associate Director, Naomi Nishi, will review your grant overview and project description from a lay perspective, if you get it to her at least a week before routing through OGC. Email her to set it up.
Aim for three
ORDE suggests that PIs try to find at least three people to review their grants before submitting. This gives you a nice diversity of perspectives and ups your chances that you'll hear some feedback that will allow you to revise your application in such a way that you don't hear that same feedback in your agency review.
Choose the right level of reviewer expertise
Certainly, you want to have people with the right expertise to emulate those who will review your grant at an agency. Look for folks in your field who will be familiar with the concepts you're using, but not those who are so close to the project (e.g., Co PIs) that they may overlook some of the same problems in your application that you've overlooked.
Find a layperson
We've heard several seasoned PIs say that they have a family member (a grandma, a daughter, a spouse, etc.) review their proposal before submitting. These generous family members are able to give feedback on whether your argument is clear, if you've adequately described the need for your research, and whether the proposal includes too much jargon. This is a useful perspective, especially if the agency you're submitting to may include lay people as reviewers.
Give direction
I've found that at times when I ask a colleague to review my writing, if I'm not clear with them on what I want, they sometimes go through and simply identify grammatical and/or spelling errors. This is certainly helpful, but not until I have a fairly final product. But, when folks don't know what to look for, they often focus on the little things. So, give your reviewers direction. Depending on how busy they are, you may want to send one piece of your proposal to a colleague or friend and have them assess one aspect, such as whether you've shown the potential impact of your project clearly and compellingly.
Give time and a heads up
Those in the grants game know that even when you start early, time is always of the essence when you're developing an application. Yet, if you want to adequately use internal reviewers before you submit, and you want them to continue talking to you, it's important to give them time. Even before you have something to review, it's a good idea to identify those you want to review your application and ask them if they're willing. Then let them know when to expect a draft and when you need it back (giving them a week is usually appropriate). Lastly, make sure that you have enough time to really use their feedback. If they give you comments, you need to make sure you have time to incorporate them in a revision, otherwise it's all for naught.
Resources
ORDE can help! If you are faculty member for CU Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus, Associate Director, Naomi Nishi, will review your grant overview and project description from a lay perspective, if you get it to her at least a week before routing through OGC. Email her to set it up.
Friday, January 22, 2016
The dangers of submitting at the last minute
You have 15 minutes before your 5:00 pm grant application deadline. Your weeks of late nights getting your application together is about to pay off. You hover over your grants administrator's shoulder as they click the final button to submit and you both look on with bated breath for a confirmation message. Instead of the anticipated confirmation, you get... an error message! You wake up in a cold sweat. Whew! It was just a dream. You submitted your final grant application yesterday, a full week before the deadline. You're good!
Unfortunately, this nightmare or one like it sometimes ends up being a reality for PIs that wait till the last minute to submit grants. Now we know full well that oftentimes PIs do not get the sort of lead time they need to really take the time necessary. ORDE recommends that PIs take a 6 month time frame to develop their idea and project to submitting the grant. But we also recommend that your zero hour not be at the grant deadline. Here's why:
Error messages: As our nightmare scenario suggests, some submission systems will actually check for completion of your grant application and will not accept it until all errors are corrected. The NIH only considers an application if it is accepted as error free by grants.gov and then the NIH. If you get an error message, you must start the submission process over again with errors fixed.
Site overload: Unfortunately, most PIs wait till the eleventh hour to submit their proposal, and so the agency site is sometimes experiencing hundreds or even thousands of submissions at a time. This means that processing can slow down or even that sites can crash. Sure, if the agency site crashes, they may make exceptions, but do you really want to be at the mercy of that call when you and your team have done so much work to get that application together?
Missing pieces: Over half of applications are not reviewed because they do not follow directions or the project they're proposing is not appropriate for the agency. Obviously, you don't want to be in that pool, but when Program Announcements and RFPs have pages and pages of directions, it's easy to miss something when you're scrambling to complete your final application right at deadline.
Processing: As described above, the PI is not the person who hits the final submission button. There is a whole team of people working with you on your grant to get it submission-ready. You need to work with your grants administrator and the Office of Grants & Contracts to submit an application. Waiting until the last minute can put your whole team in a tight spot.
Anticipating the unanticipated: One thing all of these reasons have in common is they're often not anticipated by the PI. Sure, your application would have been on time if this or that hadn't happened, but of course in today's competitive climate, it's becoming rarer for agencies to make exceptions to missed deadlines. So, save yourself the heartache and stress... submit early!
Resources:
ORDE timeline
What you need to know about receipt and referral - NIH Video
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)