OVERVIEW
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) history involves a prestigious family, the company Johnson & Johnson, and a Founder with health problems. In 1936, Robert Wood Johnson II began a small community foundation known as the Johnson New Brunswick Foundation. He bankrolled it and made all funding decisions. He renamed it the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in 1952, but it still ran in the same informal fashion, targeting New Jersey. Upon his death in 1968, he left specific instructions and the bulk of his estate ($1.2 billion in Johnson & Johnson stock, the company his father created) to fund a grander version of his Foundation – a process that formally began in 1972. Today RWJF is one of the world’s largest philanthropies and the largest US philanthropy devoted to health with total assets of over $10.5 billion in 2017 (Source: RWJF Financial Statement, Dec 31, 2017, p. 3). Health and healthcare were important issues to Mr. Johnson, both because he served as CEO of Johnson & Johnson for years and because of his health history – fighting various medical issues throughout his life caused by a bout with rheumatic fever as a child (Source: “Billion Dollar Heist”, May 2012, p. 3).
Approach/Specific Interests
The Foundation mission was set by the Founder and continues today – to improve the health and health care of all Americans. The mission is pursued these days through adoption of the Foundation’s vision – building a national culture of health. The Foundation’s new President has called this their “North Star” (Source: 2018 Annual Message). The concept culture of health is defined by RWJF as “. . . individuals, neighborhoods, communities, businesses, organizations, and decision-makers embracing health as an esteemed American value and expecting it to be a routine part of life” (Source: 2013 RWJF Presidential Letter, p. 6). This vision has informed major changes to RWJF’s organization, purpose, and funding portfolio. A comprehensive review of RWJF’s past work, structure, and priorities has led to new or renewed long-term priorities.
RWJF’s four Focus Areas based on the national culture of health vision are:
• Healthy Communities
• Healthy Children, Healthy Weight
• Health Systems
• Health Leadership
AGENCY ORGANIZATION
RWJF leadership includes a President/CEO and a 14- member Board of Trustees. The Research, Evaluation, and Learning Division, headed by the Foundation’s Chief Science Officer, houses program officers and other research-related staff in all Foundation focus areas. A Division of Proposal Management handles all aspects of the online submission system and the award process.
AGENCY GRANTS PROCESS
RWJF has funded research projects, intervention projects,
large-scale community-based programs, and other project
types to meet their mission over the years. The Research,
Evaluation, and Learning Division makes awards through
Calls for Proposals (CFPs) which provide specific topic
areas, eligibility criteria, the amount of money set aside
for the competition, the number of projects they expect to
fund, potential approaches, and specific deadlines. Recent
CFPs include one on connecting the nation’s fragmented
medical, social, and public health systems; one targeting
healthy eating; one related to discovering what factors
promote adoption of policies that result in a culture of
health; and one on community-research partnerships
addressing resilience. Eligible applicants include public
agencies, universities, and public charities. All proposals
are submitted through the RWJF online portal. Most
competitions use a two-step proposal process: Step 1 preproposals
and Step 2 invited full proposals. Funding
ranges vary by CFP. Turnaround time for full proposals
runs from three to seven months.
Awards
In 2016, the Foundation made 850 grant awards for a total
of $386 million (Source: RWJF Grants Explorer Database).
Resources:
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Website
Know Your Agency Brief: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation - ORDE
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Friday, October 19, 2018
Making your proposal easy reading
I've been reviewing some writing recently and found myself making edits or suggestions around sentence length in some places where sentences went on for three-four lines, but left sentences of the same length alone in other places. This got me thinking, what's happening in those long sentences I let slide that made them easier to read than those I revised? To provide some answers to this question and the broader question of what you can do to make your grant writing easier to read, consider these tips:
Use first person, active voice
I've said this before, but I'll say it again, it is much easier to read writing that is written in the first person (using I and we instead of "the PI" or "the research team"). Of course, there are still granting agencies that frown on use of the first person, so if that is the case, always follow their rules first. But, even if you are forced into third person, you can still use active voice.
Third person, passive voice: The experiment will be conducted by the PI.
Third person, active voice: The PI will conduct the experiment.
First person, active voice: I will conduct the experiment.
You'll notice that not only is the first person, active voice example easier to read, but it's also shorter!
Read it aloud
Many writers/editors work to strike a conversational tone in their work. But, how do you do that? Well, try turning the written word into the spoken word to see how it sounds. Try reading what you have written and revise the turns of phrase that don't roll off the tongue the way they did the pen. And, of course, if you can engage someone else in listening to your talk and get their opinion, you've gone one step further to making your writing conversational.
Avoid big and vague words
Research is often dealing with highly technical or theoretical concepts, and of course, these areas lend themselves to some whopper, super-smart-sounding, words. These five dollar words are fantastic to include in your scholarly articles, but when it comes to grant-writing, they will likely not earn you any bonus points. Consider the reviewer who you send to the dictionary a couple of times. With a stack of grant applications next to them, they probably won't thank you for building their vocabulary and may resent the extra time they spend reading when you should have explained things for them.
One thought = One sentence
Circling back to our original query of why some long sentences are easier to read than others, I think where writers often get into trouble is when they try to put more than one thought in a sentence. Aside from considering the tips above, one thing that makes sentences difficult to read is when they become a list of conjunctive clauses. When you find a sentence that is long, and it's riddled with ands, or it is plum full of ors, but you lose the point of it somewhere along the way, and then the writer shifts ideas, or then they try to bring it back around, but you are already lost, and so...you get the point. That last sentence wasn't much longer than others I've used in this blog, but it just wanders on. Even if you had no trouble following it, you were probably getting a little annoyed. So, try to keep your sentences short, but if you need to get lengthy on a couple, do all you can to keep them readable and focused on one idea.
Resources
3 Quick-and-Easy Tips to Make Your Writing Easier to Read and More Effective - Jen Stevens
Making Your Writing Easy to Read - Cheryl Stevens
Use first person, active voice
I've said this before, but I'll say it again, it is much easier to read writing that is written in the first person (using I and we instead of "the PI" or "the research team"). Of course, there are still granting agencies that frown on use of the first person, so if that is the case, always follow their rules first. But, even if you are forced into third person, you can still use active voice.
Third person, passive voice: The experiment will be conducted by the PI.
Third person, active voice: The PI will conduct the experiment.
First person, active voice: I will conduct the experiment.
You'll notice that not only is the first person, active voice example easier to read, but it's also shorter!
Read it aloud
Many writers/editors work to strike a conversational tone in their work. But, how do you do that? Well, try turning the written word into the spoken word to see how it sounds. Try reading what you have written and revise the turns of phrase that don't roll off the tongue the way they did the pen. And, of course, if you can engage someone else in listening to your talk and get their opinion, you've gone one step further to making your writing conversational.
Avoid big and vague words
Research is often dealing with highly technical or theoretical concepts, and of course, these areas lend themselves to some whopper, super-smart-sounding, words. These five dollar words are fantastic to include in your scholarly articles, but when it comes to grant-writing, they will likely not earn you any bonus points. Consider the reviewer who you send to the dictionary a couple of times. With a stack of grant applications next to them, they probably won't thank you for building their vocabulary and may resent the extra time they spend reading when you should have explained things for them.
One thought = One sentence
Circling back to our original query of why some long sentences are easier to read than others, I think where writers often get into trouble is when they try to put more than one thought in a sentence. Aside from considering the tips above, one thing that makes sentences difficult to read is when they become a list of conjunctive clauses. When you find a sentence that is long, and it's riddled with ands, or it is plum full of ors, but you lose the point of it somewhere along the way, and then the writer shifts ideas, or then they try to bring it back around, but you are already lost, and so...you get the point. That last sentence wasn't much longer than others I've used in this blog, but it just wanders on. Even if you had no trouble following it, you were probably getting a little annoyed. So, try to keep your sentences short, but if you need to get lengthy on a couple, do all you can to keep them readable and focused on one idea.
Resources
3 Quick-and-Easy Tips to Make Your Writing Easier to Read and More Effective - Jen Stevens
Making Your Writing Easy to Read - Cheryl Stevens
Friday, October 12, 2018
Know Your Agency: American Diabetes Association
This week we wanted to profile the American Diabetes Association for those interested in their funding opportunities:
OVERVIEW
In 1945, 26 physicians joined together to form a new association to help them pool knowledge about a perplexing disease. Today, the American Diabetes Association (ADA), located in Arlington, VA, has three main roles: 1) supporting research, 2) advocating for additional resources, and 3) providing information and support for those living with diabetes or at-risk for developing diabetes and for healthcare professionals. (Source: ADA 2017 and Beyond, p. 2)
Specific Interests
ADA funds research on Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, pre-diabetes, obesity, gestational diabetes, and diabetic complications. (Source: We Are Research Leaders)
Approach
Organized as a voluntary health agency, ADA funds basic and clinical/translational research efforts – primarily supporting pilot project and early career investigator opportunities through their research program. The ultimate goal of this research program is to encourage new ideas and breakthroughs in diabetes research. ADA expects their investigators to then parlay their findings into larger funding, a strategy that has proven successful as more than 90% of their researchers have funding from other sources within 5 years (Source: Research 2017 Year in Review, p. 13). In addition to its grants program, ADA also publishes several leading peer-reviewed scholarly journals including Diabetes, Diabetes Care, and Diabetes Spectrum.
AGENCY ORGANIZATION
The ADA is led by a Chief Executive Officer and Leadership Team, and is governed by a Board of Directors. While ADA membership was originally limited to health care professionals, as the agency’s roles increased, membership was opened to general members beginning in 1970 (Source: 75th Anniversary Timeline). Today, their membership consists of over 14,000 health care professionals, and 500,000 people with diabetes, their families and caregivers.
AGENCY GRANTS PROCESS
The agency’s external research program, started in 1952, has provided funding for more than 4,700 research grants at $807.4 million since its inception (Source: Research Programs Grant Portfolio web page). Today, ADA offers two major grant programs:
1) CORE RESEARCH PROGRAMS FOR FACULTY
This is the standard research grants program. Applications are due in April with awards starting in January of the following year. Preference is given to less established researchers. Competitions offered are:
- Innovative Basic Science Research Awards – $115,000/year for up to 3 years
- Innovative Clinical or Translational Science Research Awards – $200,000/year for up to 3 years
- Junior Faculty Development Awards –$138,000/year for up to 4 years; supports investigators up to Assistant Professor rank with less than 10 years of research experience beyond receipt of terminal degree
2) PATHWAY TO STOP DIABETES® INITIATIVE
This nomination-based program is designed to bring in a new generation of diabetes researchers, and puts the focus on people instead of projects. Each award provides $1.625 million in total funding. Institutions are limited to one nomination across three possible categories:
- Initiator Award – Provides transitional funding at the postdoctoral level through independent researcher status (7 years of funding)
- Accelerator Award – Targets early career investigators (5 years of funding)
- Visionary Award – Seeks established, productive investigators who wish to move into diabetes research (5 years of funding)
Awards:
In 2017, the Association invested more than $37.4 million, supporting 371 research projects in their Core Program. Basic research accounted for 65% of this spending with the remainder allocated to clinical/ translational research efforts. (Source: Research 2017 Year in Review, p. 15).
For more information on the ADA, see the links below
Resources:
Know Your Agency Brief: ADA - ORDE
Thursday, October 4, 2018
Grant Writing vs. Academic Writing
Research faculty have generally done plenty of academic writing in their training and careers, but oftentimes they have done less grant writing by the time they're ready to apply for grant proposals. This shift in writing genre can feel like a rude awakening, quite simply because the rules and acceptable styles are different in a grant proposal versus a scholarly publication. Below are some of the ways they are different.
Difference in Purpose
One of the biggest differences between a proposal and a publication is that a publication is usually sharing research that you've already completed. Proposals on the other hand are focused on making a case for the research you want to do. However, proposals do require a discussion of the cutting edge research and gaps in that research similar to what you see in a literature review in a publication. Also, many granting agencies expect PIs to have preliminary data to be competitive for a grant, so PIs must describe work they've already done in making a case for the work they want to do.
Audience
One of the similarities between publications and proposals is that they are generally peer-reviewed. That means, someone like you (a researcher in your field) is asked to weigh in on whether your work should be published or funded. The key difference is that usually your publication is sent to a few reviewers who individually review your publication and send feedback and a recommendation through the journal editor. For a proposal, usually a larger group of peers review your grant proposal and weigh in after discussing it as a group. These larger groups tend to include peers who are further away from your area of expertise. Some agencies even include non-experts on review panels in which case your proposal must be accessible to the layperson
Citations
In publications, oftentimes scholars use citations to justify their inclusion or use a particular theory or framework without a full explanation of that theory/framework, since they assume that the readers will know it or can go research it through the articles they've cited. In a proposal, you cannot rely on citations in the same way. You must instead clearly outline the theory, methods, or framework you are engaging in addition to citing it. Certainly, you cannot expect a grant reviewer to go and do additional research to understand your grant; they've usually been given a whole stack of proposals to review at a time. This is another difference between grant reviewers and journal reviewers. Anytime I've been asked to review a journal article, I am only asked to review one at a time.
Format
Certainly, publications expect you to follow some guidelines and style requirements for your submission for publication, but these guidelines and requirements are usually much larger and more stringent for a grant proposal. The majority of grant proposals submitted are not even reviewed because they did not follow the format rules or the project was not in line with the mission of the agency. So, it's best to read and re-read the grant proposal guidelines and to follow them closely.
In closing, it's true that good writing is good writing, but what makes writing good in most cases is that it is written with the audience in mind.
References:
Why academics have a hard time writing good grant proposals - Robert Porter
Academic vs. Grant Writing - ORDE
Difference in Purpose
One of the biggest differences between a proposal and a publication is that a publication is usually sharing research that you've already completed. Proposals on the other hand are focused on making a case for the research you want to do. However, proposals do require a discussion of the cutting edge research and gaps in that research similar to what you see in a literature review in a publication. Also, many granting agencies expect PIs to have preliminary data to be competitive for a grant, so PIs must describe work they've already done in making a case for the work they want to do.
Audience
One of the similarities between publications and proposals is that they are generally peer-reviewed. That means, someone like you (a researcher in your field) is asked to weigh in on whether your work should be published or funded. The key difference is that usually your publication is sent to a few reviewers who individually review your publication and send feedback and a recommendation through the journal editor. For a proposal, usually a larger group of peers review your grant proposal and weigh in after discussing it as a group. These larger groups tend to include peers who are further away from your area of expertise. Some agencies even include non-experts on review panels in which case your proposal must be accessible to the layperson
Citations
In publications, oftentimes scholars use citations to justify their inclusion or use a particular theory or framework without a full explanation of that theory/framework, since they assume that the readers will know it or can go research it through the articles they've cited. In a proposal, you cannot rely on citations in the same way. You must instead clearly outline the theory, methods, or framework you are engaging in addition to citing it. Certainly, you cannot expect a grant reviewer to go and do additional research to understand your grant; they've usually been given a whole stack of proposals to review at a time. This is another difference between grant reviewers and journal reviewers. Anytime I've been asked to review a journal article, I am only asked to review one at a time.
Format
Certainly, publications expect you to follow some guidelines and style requirements for your submission for publication, but these guidelines and requirements are usually much larger and more stringent for a grant proposal. The majority of grant proposals submitted are not even reviewed because they did not follow the format rules or the project was not in line with the mission of the agency. So, it's best to read and re-read the grant proposal guidelines and to follow them closely.
In closing, it's true that good writing is good writing, but what makes writing good in most cases is that it is written with the audience in mind.
References:
Why academics have a hard time writing good grant proposals - Robert Porter
Academic vs. Grant Writing - ORDE
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Tips for applying for an NIH K award
Last week, ORDE hosted an NIH K Awardee Panel at our Anschutz Medical Campus with three faculty members who had successfully competed for a K01, K08, or K99, and they had some great advice, which I wanted to recap here.
First, to step back, the NIH K, or Research Career Development Award is a mentored grant. Most of the K mechanisms are for early career investigators, including Post Docs and Assistant Professors who have yet to successfully compete for an R01 or similar award for independent investigators. The goal of these K awards are to fund these promising investigators and to invest in their development, such that they can compete for their R01 or like award by the time they've finished their K.
Tips from former awardees:
The K proposal is unlike any proposal.
Since the K is a mentored award, you probably already realize it's different, but what the awardees stressed was how different it is. You must propose a research plan, a mentoring plan, and a career development plan that is integrated, where the components are mutually beneficial. Your mentoring and career development plans should complement your research plan, and vice versa. There are also many letters of support required from a variety of people to show not only the commitment of your mentoring team, but also your institution's commitment to you to support you in your K.
Work with your Program Officer.
Although our awardees differed in their discussions about how easy it was to work with their Program Officers, the resounding theme was that each worked with them as much as possible. One awardee had met her Program Officer at a conference almost a decade before submitting her K, and the two had strategized about her research career. Another awardee had a bad first experience with her Program Officer, but despite that, she persisted and continued to engage that PO with her work and her proposal.
Plan to resubmit.
All of the awardees on our panel had resubmitted their K proposals, with the exception of one who was allowed to make a rebuttal on her proposal without fully resubmitting. The awardees all agreed that those working on their K applications should plan for at least one resubmission, which is difficult given the time it takes to write your K. If you are like most and your first K application is not funded, work with your Program Officer to make the right improvements on your proposal, also don't let the rejection stop you from moving forward with the career development you planned. Go ahead and take the course you needed. Yes, you'll need to take it out of your proposal, but showing that you've moved ahead with things anyway, shows reviewers your commitment to your career.
Find and work with your primary mentor closely.
Your primary mentor should be someone who is a successfully funded researcher and has mentored other successful K awardees in the past. Given your mentor's experience, make sure you are working closely with them before you submit your proposal as they will be your best source of advice, coaching, and mentoring even before they are your official K mentor. Also, choose a mentor that you have a track record with, but not one you've worked with for a long time. You don't want reviewers to wonder what more you can learn from your mentor if you've already been with them for a few years.
Lastly, create a support network as you embark on your K application. Seek out those who have applied and who are applying; ask them to review draft proposals. Also, seek out the resources on campus, like ORDE and the CCTSI. The K application is a tricky one, so do all you can to set yourself up for success!
Resources:
ORDE NIH K Presentation
CCTSI PreK Program
First, to step back, the NIH K, or Research Career Development Award is a mentored grant. Most of the K mechanisms are for early career investigators, including Post Docs and Assistant Professors who have yet to successfully compete for an R01 or similar award for independent investigators. The goal of these K awards are to fund these promising investigators and to invest in their development, such that they can compete for their R01 or like award by the time they've finished their K.
Tips from former awardees:
The K proposal is unlike any proposal.
Since the K is a mentored award, you probably already realize it's different, but what the awardees stressed was how different it is. You must propose a research plan, a mentoring plan, and a career development plan that is integrated, where the components are mutually beneficial. Your mentoring and career development plans should complement your research plan, and vice versa. There are also many letters of support required from a variety of people to show not only the commitment of your mentoring team, but also your institution's commitment to you to support you in your K.
Work with your Program Officer.
Although our awardees differed in their discussions about how easy it was to work with their Program Officers, the resounding theme was that each worked with them as much as possible. One awardee had met her Program Officer at a conference almost a decade before submitting her K, and the two had strategized about her research career. Another awardee had a bad first experience with her Program Officer, but despite that, she persisted and continued to engage that PO with her work and her proposal.
Plan to resubmit.
All of the awardees on our panel had resubmitted their K proposals, with the exception of one who was allowed to make a rebuttal on her proposal without fully resubmitting. The awardees all agreed that those working on their K applications should plan for at least one resubmission, which is difficult given the time it takes to write your K. If you are like most and your first K application is not funded, work with your Program Officer to make the right improvements on your proposal, also don't let the rejection stop you from moving forward with the career development you planned. Go ahead and take the course you needed. Yes, you'll need to take it out of your proposal, but showing that you've moved ahead with things anyway, shows reviewers your commitment to your career.
Find and work with your primary mentor closely.
Your primary mentor should be someone who is a successfully funded researcher and has mentored other successful K awardees in the past. Given your mentor's experience, make sure you are working closely with them before you submit your proposal as they will be your best source of advice, coaching, and mentoring even before they are your official K mentor. Also, choose a mentor that you have a track record with, but not one you've worked with for a long time. You don't want reviewers to wonder what more you can learn from your mentor if you've already been with them for a few years.
Lastly, create a support network as you embark on your K application. Seek out those who have applied and who are applying; ask them to review draft proposals. Also, seek out the resources on campus, like ORDE and the CCTSI. The K application is a tricky one, so do all you can to set yourself up for success!
Resources:
ORDE NIH K Presentation
CCTSI PreK Program
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
The Grant Development Cycle
Many of us in research development, talk about "grant development," whereas those outside the field often talk about "grant writing." But grant developers use this phrase in recognition that grant writing is just one part of the grant development process. Below is an image of the grant development cycle. I call it a cycle intentionally, because as any successfully funded researcher will tell you, it never ends, whether you need to revise and resubmit or continue working toward your next grant after awarded to sustain your research, you must stay engaged in grant development.
To expand on this cycle, below are steps you should follow to develop a competitive grant proposal:
Search literature & funding landscape: Around the time you are combing the literature to identify gaps that your research can address, you should also be getting a lay of the funding landscape. Faculty at CU Denver and the Anschutz Medical Campus can contact ORDE to have us conduct a comprehensive fund search.
Develop project & research sponsor: As you begin to develop your research idea and have identified which sponsors might be a good fit to fund your research, you should do background research on the sponsors to which you're considering applying. It's important to understand the ideology, approach, as well as preferred topics funded by the sponsor.
Develop concept paper: A concept paper is a one-two page document that gives an overview of your project and why it's important. This can be used to shop your idea around to get feedback and generate interest around your research amongst funders, collaborators, and/or mentors.
Review program announcement: This may seem obvious, but in our experience, some PIs miss this vital step and can end up with their grant rejected when they have not followed the instructions in the program announcement.
Work with Program Officers: POs serve as the liaison between a sponsor and an applicant. POs often have influence over the review process and even some funding decisions. It's a good idea to reach out to a PO to get their thoughts on your research project before you apply.
Draft grant proposal: Based on the feedback you get on your concept paper, and considering what you've learned from your sponsor research and the program announcement, you can begin to draft your grant application.
Seek feedback: Once you have a working draft of your grant, you should vet it with colleagues, mentors, and even laypeople to make sure that your case is clear and compelling and accessible by different audiences.
Revise and Resubmit: We find ourselves in a competitive grant-funding climate where getting a grant rejected is a reality for most researchers. Remember, the biggest difference between those investigators who ultimately are funded and those who aren't is whether or not they keep submitting grants.
Resources:
Navigating the Grant Development Process - enago academy
Grant Lifecycle - University of Utah
To expand on this cycle, below are steps you should follow to develop a competitive grant proposal:
Search literature & funding landscape: Around the time you are combing the literature to identify gaps that your research can address, you should also be getting a lay of the funding landscape. Faculty at CU Denver and the Anschutz Medical Campus can contact ORDE to have us conduct a comprehensive fund search.
Develop project & research sponsor: As you begin to develop your research idea and have identified which sponsors might be a good fit to fund your research, you should do background research on the sponsors to which you're considering applying. It's important to understand the ideology, approach, as well as preferred topics funded by the sponsor.
Develop concept paper: A concept paper is a one-two page document that gives an overview of your project and why it's important. This can be used to shop your idea around to get feedback and generate interest around your research amongst funders, collaborators, and/or mentors.
Review program announcement: This may seem obvious, but in our experience, some PIs miss this vital step and can end up with their grant rejected when they have not followed the instructions in the program announcement.
Work with Program Officers: POs serve as the liaison between a sponsor and an applicant. POs often have influence over the review process and even some funding decisions. It's a good idea to reach out to a PO to get their thoughts on your research project before you apply.
Draft grant proposal: Based on the feedback you get on your concept paper, and considering what you've learned from your sponsor research and the program announcement, you can begin to draft your grant application.
Seek feedback: Once you have a working draft of your grant, you should vet it with colleagues, mentors, and even laypeople to make sure that your case is clear and compelling and accessible by different audiences.
Revise and Resubmit: We find ourselves in a competitive grant-funding climate where getting a grant rejected is a reality for most researchers. Remember, the biggest difference between those investigators who ultimately are funded and those who aren't is whether or not they keep submitting grants.
Resources:
Navigating the Grant Development Process - enago academy
Grant Lifecycle - University of Utah
Thursday, August 30, 2018
Who is the layperson and why should I write for them?
So, we frequently hear grumbling amongst researchers when they are asked to write something on their research for the layperson. And, I get it, you spend years and years becoming an expert in your field, you're on the cutting-edge, and it's annoying to have to return to the more rudimentary concepts and explain them to someone who hasn't bothered to read the foundational texts in your field!
But, as someone who has had a career writing for the layperson or educating the layperson, allow me to answer the question, "who is the layperson and why should I write for them?" To do this, I'll try to disperse some myths.
Myth #1: The layperson isn't smart.
Many researchers believe that writing for the layperson is watering down or vastly oversimplifying their research for the layperson who could never possibly understand the complexity of the research. This is a myth because the layperson is smart, the layperson has their own expertise; it's just not in your exact area. They are capable of understanding the complexity of your research, but you are going to have to educate them. To educate them, try to understand your audience better. What can you assume they already know? What concepts might they understand that you can draw on to relate to your research? What are they most interested in learning?
Myth #2: It's not worth writing for the layperson.
PIs often suggest that their grant reviewers are not laypeople, so what's the point in writing specific aims or a project overview that a layperson can understand? A couple of responses. First, are you sure that your reviewers will not include laypeople? Some agencies include patients, consumers, or other stakeholders who are laypeople as reviewers. If these folks don't understand your grant proposal, don't think they'll just chalk it up to you being so smart that it would be impossible for them to understand what you're doing. The second reason is even experts in your field appreciate you writing for the layperson, because it means you are writing in a clear and compelling manner. Even in my own field, I appreciate when a scholar lays out a theory or method that I use regularly such that a layperson could understand it because I can then draw on the way they define/describe the concepts in my own work. I can't remember a time that I was annoyed at how basic someone's description was in a grant proposal even in my own area of expertise.
Myth #3: Good research writing is complicated.
You're likely familiar with the old adage that you understand something better when you teach it. And, as a faculty researcher, you've likely experienced this; you know XX101 like the back of your hand. Now, I'm not comparing laypeople to that undergraduate who never does his/her homework and can't be bothered to show up to class on time (see myth #1). What I am saying is that when you approach research writing whether for grants or peer-reviewed journals as trying to teach your work to an audience, you will end up with a clear, compelling, and understandable text. Many of us assume that good research writing is challenging to read, and this comes from being trained to wade through a lot of bad writing by more seasoned colleagues throughout our educational and research experience. But, it's time to break this myth and say, "No, we can write about our research without exasperating and frustrating our reader, even when they're a layperson!"
I hope you will join me in this myth busting cause, for the sake of your research, for the sake of your reviewers, for the sake of the layperson!
Resources:
Writing for Lay Audiences: A Challenge for Scientists - Joselita T. Salita
Top Tips for Writing a Lay Summary - Academy of Medical Sciences
Academic and Research Paper Writing in Layman's Language - enago academy
But, as someone who has had a career writing for the layperson or educating the layperson, allow me to answer the question, "who is the layperson and why should I write for them?" To do this, I'll try to disperse some myths.
Myth #1: The layperson isn't smart.
Many researchers believe that writing for the layperson is watering down or vastly oversimplifying their research for the layperson who could never possibly understand the complexity of the research. This is a myth because the layperson is smart, the layperson has their own expertise; it's just not in your exact area. They are capable of understanding the complexity of your research, but you are going to have to educate them. To educate them, try to understand your audience better. What can you assume they already know? What concepts might they understand that you can draw on to relate to your research? What are they most interested in learning?
Myth #2: It's not worth writing for the layperson.
PIs often suggest that their grant reviewers are not laypeople, so what's the point in writing specific aims or a project overview that a layperson can understand? A couple of responses. First, are you sure that your reviewers will not include laypeople? Some agencies include patients, consumers, or other stakeholders who are laypeople as reviewers. If these folks don't understand your grant proposal, don't think they'll just chalk it up to you being so smart that it would be impossible for them to understand what you're doing. The second reason is even experts in your field appreciate you writing for the layperson, because it means you are writing in a clear and compelling manner. Even in my own field, I appreciate when a scholar lays out a theory or method that I use regularly such that a layperson could understand it because I can then draw on the way they define/describe the concepts in my own work. I can't remember a time that I was annoyed at how basic someone's description was in a grant proposal even in my own area of expertise.
Myth #3: Good research writing is complicated.
You're likely familiar with the old adage that you understand something better when you teach it. And, as a faculty researcher, you've likely experienced this; you know XX101 like the back of your hand. Now, I'm not comparing laypeople to that undergraduate who never does his/her homework and can't be bothered to show up to class on time (see myth #1). What I am saying is that when you approach research writing whether for grants or peer-reviewed journals as trying to teach your work to an audience, you will end up with a clear, compelling, and understandable text. Many of us assume that good research writing is challenging to read, and this comes from being trained to wade through a lot of bad writing by more seasoned colleagues throughout our educational and research experience. But, it's time to break this myth and say, "No, we can write about our research without exasperating and frustrating our reader, even when they're a layperson!"
I hope you will join me in this myth busting cause, for the sake of your research, for the sake of your reviewers, for the sake of the layperson!
Resources:
Writing for Lay Audiences: A Challenge for Scientists - Joselita T. Salita
Top Tips for Writing a Lay Summary - Academy of Medical Sciences
Academic and Research Paper Writing in Layman's Language - enago academy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)