The hardest thing about grant writing

Yesterday, I spoke with a person who is working to design a course for doc students at his university on good grant writing. I talked him through some of the approaches we use in ORDE and some of the exercises he might want to use in his class. He had a list of questions for me, but the one that jumped out was when he asked "What is the hardest thing about grant writing?" Now, I'm a literal person, so I had to think about it a minute to make sure my reply was indeed what I saw as the most difficult part of grant writing. Finally, I said, "The hardest part about writing a grant is learning how to describe your research and its importance to a non-expert or layperson."

Now, you may be thinking that writing for a non-expert or layperson is not really a necessary part of the grant writing process. To that I say... Yuh-huh it is! But, don't take my word for it. Check out this excerpt from the American Heart Association, stressing the importance:

AHA Summary for Non-scientists Updated for 2020

Effectively communicating one’s research to the public is taking on increasing importance. The AHA Lay Summary/Summary for Non-scientists was recently updated to stress the importance of this element, along with the inclusion of lay peer reviewers on many study sections. Applications for research funding will now be assessed for their potential impact on the AHA Mission, and on the applicant’s ability to effectively describe the proposal and its potential outcomes to non-scientists. This potential impact assessment will be based primarily on the Summary for Non-scientists and will account for 5-10% of the overall priority score.

I could go on and point to other funding agencies that are explicitly or implicitly looking for PIs to convey their work and its importance to the general public, but suffice it to say, they are and it's important.

But, why is it so hard? You would think that explaining something in which you are an expert would be a breeze. But, it's difficult because you are an expert. You've spent years learning about and developing your research. How can you possibly explain all the intricacies of your work to a novice? And therein lies the rub!

So, briefly, here's are some tactics to help you meet this, the most difficult of grant challenges:

Try explaining/discussing your research with a non-expert: Step outside your lab or office and you'll find non-experts all around. Try out your explanations on students - you can call it teaching :) Aside from this, notice the questions you're asked when presenting your research to non-experts; this may give you a hint as to how to explain it.

Follow the 'why?' and 'So what?' trail: I have two small kids, so I'm used to explaining and then explaining my explanation and so on ad nauseam, but if you start forcing yourself to explain your work and its importance, you'll get better at it. So, even if you don't have kids to test you in this capacity, you can still task yourself with these additional explanations, and it may be slightly less annoying too!

Change formats: Sometimes if you map something out in a conceptual diagram or even a mind map, you begin to see new ways of describing it to others.

Come up with metaphors: If you can think of something else that works similarly to mechanisms in your research, using those more common metaphors can help you explain it. I've seen folks describe a cell membrane as a plastic bag or proteins regulating cellular development in the ways that traffic lights regulate traffic. What works in similar ways to that in your research? And can you use it as an explicative tool?

Sometimes trying to approach something in a new way gives you a fresh perspective for explaining your complicated work to others. So, give it a try; you may just be able to conquer the hardest part of grant writing!

Resources:
Grant Writing vs. Academic Writing - ORDE
Writing for the Layperson - ORDE

Tips for conveying methods in your grant

Writing clearly and compellingly about your research in a grant proposal is always a challenge. Nowhere is it more challenging than in your methods section. When I am reviewing grant proposals for our faculty, the methods section is commonly the part where the proposal goes off the rails. PIs who have made a brilliant case for their research project slip back into shop-talk in their methods section. All of the avoidance of jargon and acronyms carefully navigated in the project overview are ignored when it comes to their offering methodological details. This is understandable. After all, methods are the most technical aspect of your proposal.

Conversely, some PIs, in trying to convey their methods to a broader audience, end up offering a vague and confusing account of how they will conduct their research, perhaps not wanting to bore their reviewers with the nitty gritty of their work. Yet, going too far down this broadening path can often leave your readers in an utter state of confusion and annoyance. Obviously, being overly technical and being too vague are both fatal flaws to grant proposals, so where's the middle ground?

The methods portion of your proposal serves as the bridge between the vision of your research and the business plan. Whereas your project overview, research objectives, and impact statement serve as your venue for communicating vision, your timeline and budget serve as your business plan, showing the reviewers that you will be an effective project manager. The methods portion links these two elements. It takes your brilliant vision for your research and demonstrates that it is rooted in reality. Below are some tips to make sure you take full advantage of your methods bridge.

Give context: Oftentimes there are a variety of methods that could be applied to answer a particular research question, but the methods you're planning to use are the best. So, why is that? Explain to your reviewers the history of your methods and the options available. How has similar research been done in the past? Are you using the same methods or how have you adapted those methods?

Justify your choices: As you give context for your methods, you'll find that you are quite naturally justifying the methods you've chosen for your study. But, be explicit. Answer the questions of why are these the best methods? How did you choose these methods? Why should reviewers be confident that they are the best fit? Why are you?

Show your methodological expertise: Even if you have the best project and the best methods nailed down, if you can't instill confidence in your reviewers that you and your team are perfectly suited to carry them out, your grant will be dead in the water. So instead, offer evidence of your expertise. Summarize your past research and experience using these methods to nip any element of doubt in the bud.

Put your methods write-up through internal review: To assist you in walking that fine line between too technical and too broad, be sure to have others review your proposal. Have a colleague in your field review your methods. Have another colleague slightly askew of your field review them. Then, have a layperson review your methods. If all three of these people can understand what you're going to do and why it's the best way to do it, you'll be in good shape when it comes to your external reviewers.

Resources:
How to write the methods section of your proposal - Joanne Fritz
Writing proposals with strong methodology - Kusum Singh and Gavin W. Fulmer

Fall 2019 ORDE Seminar Videos

Happy New Year!

I thought it appropriate by starting the new year with a look back at some of our seminars from the fall. Below are the descriptions and links to the edited videos on our vimeo site!

AMC: Grant Writing Symposium

Faculty Experts: Jennifer Kemp, Director, Research Office, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine; Andrew Thorburn, Chair, Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine; Adit Ginde, Professor and Vice Chair for Research, Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine

Grant writing is an essential skill for a successful and productive researcher, but one that takes work and experience to hone. Join us for our 2019 Grant Writing Symposium and hear from seasoned researchers and grant writers on how to work with Program Officers, write your Specific Aims, and get insights about the review process and what reviewers are looking for in your grant. You’ll leave with best practices in grant writing, as well as resources to help you start your academic year off on the right foot!

Denver: Know YourAgency Lunch: Department of Education

Faculty Experts: Ritu Chopra, Executive Director, The Paraprofessional Research and Resource Center & Project Director, NxtGEN Teachers, Teacher Quality Partnerships Project; Barbara Seidl, Associate Dean of Teacher Education and Undergraduate Experiences, School of Education and Human Development

In the Know Your Agency Lunches, we feature a specific agency and ask either an investigator funded by the agency or an agency insider to give an overview of the agency and offer some of the nuances that might not be readily available on the website or program announcement. These lunches also offer an opportunity for investigators interested in applying to the agency the chance to ask questions of someone more experienced with the agency.

AMC: Know YourAgency Lunch: DOD

Faculty Experts: Vikhyat Bebarta, Professor of Emergency Medicine; J. David Beckham, Associate Professor of Medicine, Neurology, & Immunology/Microbiology; Rosemary Rochford, Professor of Immunology & Microbiology; Travis Taylor, Associate, Strategic Marketing Innovations (SMI), Inc.; David Visi, Associate, SMI, Inc.

In partnership with the CU Office of Government Relations, in this Know Your Agency Lunch, we will hear from Drs. Travis Taylor and David Visi from SMI, Inc. on how to approach the Department of Defense (DoD) and apply for funding. We will then hear from a panel of faculty who have been successfully funded by the DoD to learn more about the unique aspects of this funder.

Denver: Revising and Resubmitting your Grant Proposal

Faculty Experts: Naomi Nishi, Associate Director, ORDE; Jean Scandlyn, Clinical Associate Professor, Health and Behavioral Sciences and Anthropology

Few things are as disappointing as not getting your grant proposal funded, but it’s important to remember that all of the most funded researchers have had many proposals declined. What makes them successful, though, is that they didn’t let those rejections stop them. They listened to their reviewers, worked with their Program Officer, went back to the drawing board, and resubmitted a better proposal. Join us for this seminar where a faculty expert will discuss the resubmission process and how to be successful through it. 

Happy viewing, and as we look forward to what 2020 has in store, don't forget to register for our Spring Seminars!

Resources

ORDE Spring Seminars

ORDE Vimeo Site

ORDE Spring Seminars

As the fall semester is at its end, we're happy to announce our schedule for our spring 2020 faculty seminars. Below are the descriptions and CU Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus faculty can register here.

ORDE Spring 2020 Faculty Seminars

February

Denver: Grant Writing Symposium

February 4, 2020

9:30 – 1:00

Location: Lawrence St. Center, Rm 1150

Faculty Experts: Cathy Bodine, Associate Professor, Bioengineering; Brian Buma, Assistant Professor, Integrative Biology; Ron Tzur, Professor, Math Education

Grant writing is an essential skill for a successful and productive researcher, but one that takes work and experience to hone. Join us for our 2019 Denver Grant Writing Symposium and hear from seasoned researchers and grant writers on how to work with Program Officers, pitch your project for a grant, and get insights about the grant review process and what reviewers are looking for in your proposal. You’ll leave with best practices in grant writing, as well as resources to help you start your academic year off on the right foot!

AMC: NIH K Award Grant Planning Seminar

February 26, 2020

12:00 – 3:00 pm

Location: Strauss Health Sciences Library, Reading Room

Faculty Experts: Jose Castillo-Mancilla, Associate Professor, School of Medicine; Amy Feldman, Assistant Professor, School of Medicine; Vinay Kini, Assistant Professor, School of Medicine; Laura Wiley, Assistant Professor, School of Medicine; Yi Zhang, Postdoctoral Fellow, School of Medicine

Description: During this working seminar, you will learn about the NIH’s K award grant programs, as well as strategies for approaching these unique grants. You will learn tactics and experiences from past K awardees and have an opportunity to get feedback on your K plan from your peers and awardees.

March

Denver: Career Programs

March 3, 2020

12:00 – 2:00 pm

Location: CU Building, Rm 490

Faculty Experts: Mark Golkowski, Professor of Electrical Engineering; Amy Wachholtz, Associate Professor of Psychology

Description: During this seminar, you will learn about the NSF CAREER program and the NIH mentored-K programs, as well as strategies for approaching these unique grants. You will learn tactics and experiences from a past K and CAREER awardee.

AMC: Revising and Resubmitting your Grant Proposal

March 12, 2020

12:00 – 2:00

Location: Education 2 North (P28), Rm 1206

Faculty Experts: Jennifer Kemp, Director, Research Office, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine

Few things are as disappointing as not getting your grant proposal funded, but it’s important to remember that all of the most funded researchers have had many proposals declined. What makes them successful, though, is that they didn’t let those rejections stop them. They listened to their reviewers, worked with their Program Officer, went back to the drawing board, and resubmitted a better proposal. Join us for this seminar where a faculty expert will discuss the resubmission process and how to be successful through it.

April

Denver: NSF Review Process

April 8, 2020

12:00 – 2:00 pm

Location: Lawrence St. Center, Rm 745

Faculty Expert: Michael Bodhi Rogers, Professor, Physics

Putting together an NSF grant proposal is a major endeavor, but what happens once you hit the ‘send button’ on your proposal? Who looks at your proposal? What decisions do they make? What process does it go through? In this seminar, we will discuss the NSF proposal review processes and what it means for you as the PI as you prepare your proposals. We will hear from a seasoned NSF PI and Reviewer about their experiences with the NSF review process.

Denver: Grant Writing for the Layperson (Non-expert)

April 30, 2020

12:00 – 2:00 pm

Location: Student Commons Building, Rm 2000

Experts: Naomi Nishi, Associate Director of Educational Outreach, Office of Research Development and Education; Rachel Sturtz, Research Communications Specialist, Office of Research Services

Being an expert in your field means that you understand the complexities of your research better than anybody else. However, for many researchers, that means you also have a hard time explaining your research and its importance to anybody else. Being able to communicate to a non-expert audience is crucial both in terms of making your work relevant and informative to broader audiences and because the ability to explain your research at a basic level is crucial to good grant-writing. Although many assume that grant reviewers are also experts in the same field, at some agencies, non-experts are included on the review panel. Even if they aren’t, it doesn’t take much specialization for an expert reviewer to not fully grasp the project you’re proposing. Join us for this seminar to learn ways to relate your research to non-expert audiences.

May

AMC: Grant Writing for the Layperson (Non-Expert)

May 7, 2020

12:00 – 2:00 pm

Location: Education 2 North (P28), Rm 2302

Experts: Naomi Nishi, Associate Director of Educational Outreach, Office of Research Development and Education; Rachel Sturtz, Research Communications Specialist, Office of Research Services

Being an expert in your field means that you understand the complexities of your research better than anybody else. However, for many researchers, that means you also have a hard time explaining your research and its importance to anybody else. Being able to communicate to a non-expert audience is crucial both in terms of making your work relevant and informative to broader audiences and because the ability to explain your research at a basic level is crucial to good grant-writing. Although many assume that grant reviewers are also experts in the same field, at some agencies, non-experts are included on the review panel. Even if they aren’t, it doesn’t take much specialization for an expert reviewer to not fully grasp the project you’re proposing. Join us for this seminar to learn ways to relate your research to non-expert audiences.

Resources:
Spring Faculty Seminars - ORDE
Seminar Video Archive - ORDE

Giving Grantitude

With Thanksgiving last week and it being "Giving Tuesday" today, I thought it would be a good opportunity to blog about the opportunities for incorporating gratitude in grant development, or what I've coined, grantitude. Within fundraising offices, gratitude is an essential part of the equation. Annual Funds will hold thank-a-thons in their phone banks and in the major gift realm, there is a whole professional field focused on stewardship, or folks who are tasked with thanking donors and continuing to cultivate them toward other gifts.

Is this done because these institutions and professionals are just overwhelmed with gratitude? Well, not to be skeptical around Thanksgiving, but no, thank-a-thons and stewardship happen because they've been shown to generate more giving.

Now, it's true that fundraising is different from grant development, however, we can glean some strategies from fundraisers that are applicable.

Always say thank you
At the heart of stewardship is showing appreciation to anyone who gives you something. So, when you receive a grant of any kind, make sure to figure out where to give thanks and do it. Send a thank you note or email to a PO that worked with you in the process, or send a note of thanks to any folks in leadership positions at the agency that it would be appropriate to contact for a quick thanks. This is a nice thing to do and shows appreciation for those who spent time and ultimately money on you and your work, but on the strategic side, it allows you to stand out from your competition. How many researchers think about sending a thank you or showing gratitude for a grant? Probably, not a whole lot, so if you do it, it may give you an edge or at least get your name in front of people you want to know who you are.

Cultivate relationships
These thank yous are a part of continuing the relationship(s) you have with an agency. Chances are, your first grant is not the only one you'll ever try to get from a sponsor, so it makes sense to build your relationship. Aside from saying thank you, make sure you are a good steward of their money - get those pesky progress reports to your PO on time and follow-up with any requests or questions that a sponsor has. Being nice to work with may work to your benefit the next time you go to submit a grant application.

Show grantitude to all involved
Even though they don't have direct responsibility for your being funding, don't forget to show gratitude to reviewers. Now, I don't mean sending them thank you notes (you don't know who they are anyway). I'm saying that in any resubmissions, when responding to reviewer comments, show gratitude for their work in reviewing your proposal, and be gracious in your revisions and explanations. Don't be argumentative; it won't get you anywhere good.

This hopefully gives you few ideas on employing grantitude in your process. The resource below gives other related strategies. Have a happy thanksgiving and may the grant-makers continue to smile on you. :)

Resources
Grant Management - Stewardship - The Grant Helpers.com
8 Great Ways to Thank a Funder - grants edge

Tips for Early Career Faculty

Last week, I was invited to attend 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.

Resources:
From PhD to Professor - The Muse
The Professor is in: 4 Steps to a Strong Tenure File - Chronicle of Higher Ed

Resubmitting Your Proposal

At most agencies, resubmitted grants have a higher success rate than first-time grant submissions. For instance, the NIH reported that in 2015, their first-time submissions had a success rate around 13% and their resubmissions was closer to 33%! Yet many researchers are deterred from resubmitting when reviewer comments and critique are difficult to swallow. The most successfully funded researchers have usually received as many no's as they have yes's and often more. However, when you receive a "no," you have a decision to make. If you decide to resubmit, you want to move as quickly as you can to revise and resubmit.

As you consider resubmitting and what you might do in your resubmission to enhance your chances of success, consider the following questions and suggestions:

What level are the suggested changes?
Getting comments from reviewers that suggest you clarify a section of your grant or make minor changes to your methods are very different from comments that suggest a flawed hypothesis or a poor fit between your research goals with the agency's funding priorities. Determining if reviewers are excited about your project and whether changes you make can move you from a not funded to funded in the next iteration is key to deciding if you should revise and resubmit to the same agency.

Is there a better agency fit?
Sometimes in reading reviewer comments, you may get a sense that there is a fundamental disconnect between your project and the agency's mission or goals. If this is the case, you may want to begin to search for agencies whose mission might better align with your work.

Which comments hold water?
One of the most frustrating aspects of reviewer comments is when you get contradicting opinions or comments that seem out of left field. Despite initial reactions to comments, after you've taken a couple of days to mull them over, go back to your proposal and honestly weigh which comments can make your project better and which can't and why they can't.  For those that can help you improve, be grateful for them and begin incorporating them. For those that are not helpful, see if there are ways you can improve your proposal to make your decisions and line of thinking more clear.  Perhaps a reviewer misunderstood aspects of your proposal, which led to their questionable comment. Are there ways you can revise to avoid such confusion by future reviewers?

Must you respond to all comments?
Of course some of your reviewer comments will be good to respond to or incorporate into your grant resubmission, but the question of whether you need to respond to all comments depends on whether the agency to which you're submitting allows a response statement in your resubmission.  Agencies such as the NIH require an introduction to the grant that outlines your responses to your summary statement.  In  cases where you must respond directly, it's wise to respond to all of the comments, especially when you will have the same reviewers for your resubmission.  If, like at the NSF, all grants are considered new even if they are resubmissions, you needn't respond to each and every comment in your grant if it does not make sense to do so.

Should you talk with your Program Officer?
The answer to this question is almost always - Yes! But, with resubmissions, make sure that you're not angry or trying to defend yourself before you pick up the phone.  Once you're ready to have the conversation, do call/email your Program Officer.  Oftentimes, your Program Officer was in the room during the review of your grant and they can offer you some clarification, advise you on changes you're considering making, and even help you make the decision as to whether you should resubmit.

Don't forget, if you've done your homework and made sure your project is a good fit for the program you're applying to, you should likely resubmit with revisions. Bear in mind, the most successfully funded researchers have also received the most rejections!

Resources
Are you on the fence about whether to resubmit? - Michael Lauer, NIH
Resubmission of the Grant Proposal - Chapter from Writing Dissertation and Grant Proposals (Chasan-Taber, 2014)