Grant Writing 101

Presented by:Carla Borden, Research Development SpecialistRebekah Craig, Research Development Specialist

Today’s Objectives

1. Basic Components

2. Writing for Review

3. Problem Statement / Specific Aims

4. Narrative

Basic Components

Standard Proposal Content

Summary or Abstract Program Narrative or Project Description

Goals/Objectives; Hypothesis & Aims; Research Questions Need; Background & Significance; Rationale; Theoretical Framework Program Plans; Methods; Strategies; Research Plan Management Plan; Personnel Evaluation; Assessment

Budget & Budget Justification Attachments

CV Letters of support/commitment Other supporting documentation

Project Summary – 1 page Address merit review criteria (Intellectual merit & broader impacts)

Project Description – 15 pages Introduction Background and Significance Results from prior NSF Support Research Plan/Timeline

References Biographical Sketch – 2 pagesBudget

Budget Justification – 3 pagesCurrent & Pending SupportFacilities, Equipment & Other ResourcesData Management Plan

Proposal Title – 80 characters, including titleProject Summary – 30 lines of textProject Narrative

Specific Aims – 1 page Research Strategy - Generally 6 – 12 pages

Significance, Innovation, Approach, Timeline Bibliography/References Cited Other Attachments: Vertebrate Animals, Consortium Agreements,

Letters of Support, Resource Sharing PlanBiographical Sketch – 4 pagesBudget – R&R Budget Component OR PHS 398 Modular Budget

Component Budget Justification

Other Project Information – Facilities & Other Resources, Equipment, Public Health Relevance Statement

Organizational Background StatementProject Narrative – 10 pages

Research Questions Research Design Data Sources Data Analyses Personnel Capability Organizational Capacity Outline for Research Report Outcomes and Measurements Schedule Plans for Dissemination

Biographical Sketches Project Budget Form

Statement of Significance and ImpactList of ParticipantsProject Title – 125 charactersProject Narrative – 25 double-spaced pages

“Write with evaluation criteria in mind”Project BudgetBrief Resume (and other Appendices)Statement of History of Grants

What’s the Difference?Academic Writing

Scholarly Pursuit:

Individual Passion

Theme-Centered:

Theory and Thesis

Impersonal Tone:

Objective, Dispassionate

Few Length Constraints:

Verbosity Rewarded

Grant WritingSponsor Goals:

Service Attitude

Project-Centered:

Objectives and Activities

Personal Tone:

Conveys Excitement

Strict Length Constraints:

Brevity Rewarded

Know the sponsor

Mirror key phrases and terminology

ACADEMIC GRANTScholarly Pursuit• Individual passion• Advance your career

Sponsor Goals• Service attitude• Adapt expertise

• Find a healthy balance

• Contextualize proposed work in literature

• Extend boundaries

• Okay to imagine

ACADEMIC GRANTPast Oriented• Work that has been done

Future Oriented• Work that should be done

• LEAD with your exciting ideas• Use strong, active language• Write with funders & reviewers in mind• Why are you uniquely deserving?

ACADEMIC GRANT

Expository Rhetoric• Explaining• Logical progression

Persuasive Rhetoric• Selling• Strong pitch

ACADEMIC GRANT

Theme-Centered• Theory & thesis• Realm of ideas• Examine issue• Final conclusions

Project-Centered• Objectives & activities• World of action• Accomplish goals• Expected outcomes

• Avoid proposing a “study” or “examination” unless specific to RFP

• Ever-present Questions: • How will I do this?• How will I measure the outcomes?

• Encourage excitement for your project• Seek their endorsement• Use first-person voice• May seem like violation of editorial rules

• Seek counsel on concept before writing• Contact program officer• Collaborate across colleges & institutions• Share the writing responsibility• ALWAYS have someone proofread

• Follow ALL formatting directions• Grammar & sentence structure matter• Flag sentences more than 3 lines long• Be precise with word choice

Institute for Research Development

• Describe your project to your mother• Seek proofreaders outside your discipline• Read one sentence at a time from back to front

“A grant is an infomercial, not a term paper.

Get up and Stretch!!!

NIH Peer Review Revealed: (3:25 – 9:10) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBDxI6l4dOA

NIH Tips for Applicants: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cNRMsCGfHo

Thinking Like a Reviewer

Significance Innovation Approach Investigator(s) Environment

NIH Review Criteria

Intellectual Merit (potential to advance knowledge) Broader Impacts (potential to benefit society and contribute to the

achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes) For both above, evaluate:

Creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts Well-reasoned, well-organized plan based on a sound rationale

with a mechanism to assess success Qualifications of individual, team, and institution Adequate resources available to the PI (institution or

collaborations)

NSF Review Criteria

Intellectual significance of the project Pertinence of research questions and appropriateness of design Qualifications, expertise, and commitment of PD & collaborators Soundness of dissemination and access plans Potential for success, including completion within time frame

NEH Review Criteria

Artistic Excellence Novelty of the research questions, datasets, and/or methodological approach. Overall rigor of the research plan (Clarity & appropriateness of design; Analytical

techniques; Quality/validity/reliability of data; Qualifications of project personnel) Artistic Merit (NEA Understanding = the value and/or impact of the arts is expanded and

promoted) Potential of the project to achieve NEA Understanding; includes increasing diversity of

fields of expertise that contribute to arts-related research, & heightening relevance of arts-related research to policy and practice.

Appropriateness of the proposed performance measurements and their ability to demonstrate NEA Understanding; includes statement of how the applicant will determine whether the project's goals have been achieved, and how those goals will achieve NEA Understanding.

Dissemination Plan Feasibility of success with requested budget and resources

NEA Review Criteria

What are YOUR review criteria?

Do you have the right experience as PI/PD? Is the hypothesis or question being proposed properly

supported? Do the Specific Aims / Project Summary answer the core

hypothesis or question being asked? Is the money being asked for going to make substantial

forward progress in the field? Is the community interested in the work you are proposing? Morgan Giddings at https://marketyourscience.com/

“Objection Obliterator”

“. . . because there is considerable turnover annually of individual reviewers and of review panels, it can pay to be persistent; funding chances usually improve with resubmissions.” Miner JT. Res Mgmt Rev. 2011; 18(2):85-108.

Persistence pays…

Always address reviewer comments Rejection = lack of confidence = procrastinating or writing without

confidence = rejection = reinforcement of downward spiral Acquiring grant-writing skills + persistence + practice = success

…but trial and error doesn’t!Actions

BeliefsResults

NSF: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/reviewer.jsp Dept of Education: http://

ies.ed.gov/director/sro/peer_review/application_review.aspand

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/seekingfieldreaders.html NIH (early career reviewer): http://

public.csr.nih.gov/ReviewerResources/BecomeAReviewer/Pages/Overview-of-ECR-program.aspx

NIJ: http://www.nij.gov/nij/funding/reviews/peer-reviewers.htm NEH: https://securegrants.neh.gov/prism/ ORAU

Becoming a Reviewer

Follow the instructions (even the very picky details) Write for review MUST flow from well-crafted, peer-reviewed specific aims

Developing the Narrative

Taking Aim

Irrational Reviewers

Your reviewer’s enthusiasm is an emotional reaction, not a rational one.

There is no fixed notion of value; it is arbitrary. Reviewers will not automatically discern the value of your

proposed work. You must communicate the value to them – they may not

“guess” correctly on their own.

Credit: Morgan Giddings. The Back Door to Funding Report

Who cares?

Your proposal must feel: Exciting Interesting Innovative Important Reviewer friendly

Lead with emotions and justify with logic

Credit: Morgan Giddings. The Back Door to Funding Report

Feelings Count!

“I develop computer networks.” So what?

“I develop computer networks to allow researchers to transfer data back and forth rapidly.” Narrow appeal.

“I develop computer networks to allow new kinds of interaction and collaboration that will revolutionize how people share data and work together remotely.” Better… but too vague.

Aiming for Value

“Physicists are in an important race to find extraterrestrial life, but their work is significantly impeded because the massive data sets they collect must be transferred physically on remote desert roads by Jeep. Our new networking technology will connect the remote site with the data processing center to allow data transfer and collaboration in real-time, dramatically accelerating the project.” Now you’re fundable (but know your audience; may need to

broaden statement). Credit: Morgan Giddings. The Back Door to Funding Report

Aiming for Value

You probably learned everything you need to know before high school!

Begin with an outline (use solicitation) Subject and verb One main idea per paragraph Avoid lengthy sentences Use commas & semi-colons Spelling & grammar matter

For each paragraph and sentence ask: How does this link to what I’ve just finished? Whose story is this sentence? What’s going on here How will this thought develop? What more do I have to know? What is the most important piece of information here?

Utilize figures, tables & flow charts to save text Provide engaging legends that can stand on their own (convey a

point) Consider white space

Narrative Text Progression

Passive vs. Active Voice

Mistakes were made.vs.

I made a mistake.

The student’s response was measured.vs.

We measured the student’s response.

The electric identifier was used to solve the problem.

I used the electric identifier to solve the problem.

The problem was solved with the electric identifier.

Wordiness

Get past the subject and to its verb quickly!

Some scientists, because they write in a style that is impersonal and objective, do not communicate easily with laypeople.

Some scientists do not communicate easily with laypeople because they write in a style that is impersonal and objective.

Questions?

Homework

Refine specific aims Begin drafting narrative Communicate with your ORTT Specialist