Wisdom of the Grant-Writing Masters Welcome, Introduce me and JILL. Sources of wisdom (successful grant applicants from research-intensive universities). Purpose today – to examine strategies used by highly successful grant writers and help you apply them to your own grant writing process. Not about constructing sentences and paragraphs, mainly about the process of building a grant for a specific competition. Systematic approach is essential because competition for funding is fierce. Only well-written, well-thought-out proposals have any chance of success. Requires lots of time, lots of hard work (months or years, not weeks or days). Athabasca University Grant-Writing Workshop 10 May 2018 Cathy McPhalen, PhD thINK Editing Inc Communicating Research

This morning’s activities Introductions Specific discussion points Stretch breaks Informal wrap-up discussion Move around, get refreshments at any time. Discuss and ask questions at any time.

Topics today Plan ahead Get preliminary data Understand the review process Read and follow all instructions Write for your reviewers Get feedback

Introductions Name, field of research, grant competition that you plan to apply to (agency and name and date). Next slide - Before we get into specifics, a little discussion of the main purpose of a grant application.

Why are you applying for a grant? What are your key selling points? This is a good idea I can do the work Before we get into specifics, a little discussion of the main purpose of a grant application. A grant application is a request for money, so a grant application needs to sell your reviewers on why they should fund your application. Key points to make in this sales pitch: - this research is worth doing – quality of the idea in terms of the current state of the field, knowledge gaps, significance or potential impact of results (on who?), creativity or novelty, demand for results - I can do the work – feasibility in terms of expertise, experience, research tools, access to populations and research sites, access to complementary expertise, ability to complete the work with the given budget and timeline Many components to assemble to convince reviewers that your proposed work is worth spending money on.

Plan ahead Preparing a competitive, fundable grant proposal takes a lot of time and work before you even start writing. Without that advance work to prepare for grant writing, your proposal is likely to have gaps and problems that reviewers will find. Better to avoid submitting a proposal that contains those gaps and problems. How?

Are you ready to apply? - timeline 1 to 2 years ahead Have you identified a significant research problem and innovative approach? Have you discussed your research idea with experienced colleagues? I know that this sounds like a long time to be planning a grant application, but you need to establish the foundation before you can write the proposal. The foundation needs two key pillars: - positioning your proposal to easily convince reviewers that the work is worth doing (and spending money on) - positioning your proposal to easily convince reviewers that you can do the work proposed How do you go about identifying a significant research problem? One that passes the test of “Who cares?” and “So what?”. Why discuss your research idea with experienced colleagues? Discussing the research idea with colleagues will help you refine your research question and approach – they will think of things that you haven’t yet, and they will identify many of the same possible problems that reviewers will see. Better to have those problems spotted now, before you write and submit the proposal!

Are you ready to apply? - timeline 1 to 2 years ahead Can you do the research you propose? papers published collaborators with clearly specified roles preliminary data The foundation needs two key pillars: - positioning your proposal to easily convince reviewers that the work is worth doing (and spending money on) - positioning your proposal to easily convince reviewers that you can do the work proposed A variety of ways to demonstrate that you have the skills and experience to carry out the proposed research. Simplest is to have publications in the area of your research problem and the methods that you plan to use. This is gold standard because experts in the area have already reviewed your work and agreed that it is valid. Other ways to demonstrate your skills and experience: - connect with collaborators who have complementary skills and experience - get preliminary data. Ideas are good, but are usually not sufficient on their own.

Get preliminary data The cynical view: research must already have been completed to convince reviewers to fund it. Realistic view: You must convince reviewers that your approach and methods are the right ones (and the best ones) for the work that you propose. You must also convince reviewers that you and your team of collaborators have the skills and expertise to carry out the work proposed. Preliminary data can show reviewers that you are on track for both these aspects of feasibility.

Are your preliminary data convincing? - timeline 1 to 2 years ahead Are your approach and methods feasible (can get answers) and appropriate (can get the right kinds of answers) for the work that you propose? How can you tell? Again a good time to talk over your approaches and results with experienced colleagues. Also possible to get feedback on conference presentations, for example. Note that this step can take time for experiments, travel to specific resources such as archives, interviews or focus groups, etc.

Are your preliminary data convincing? - timeline 1 to 2 years ahead Do you and your team of collaborators have all the skills and expertise to carry out the work proposed? Do you need to find collaborators with complementary skills and expertise? If you have not published on a method, you may need to have a collaborator who has. May also need letters of collaboration or support.

Do you need funding to collect preliminary data Do you need funding to collect preliminary data? - timeline 1 to 2 years ahead Do you need to find funding for a pilot study or experiments to establish that your approach is feasible and appropriate? Where can you get this kind of funding? JILL - ARF - non-profit organizations and charities - larger agencies e;g; CIHR Planning and Dissemination grants, NSERC Engage (to set up industry collaborations) - other suggestions?

Stretch break

Understand the review process Why? You need to know how reviewers will be judging your application - What are the key evaluation criteria? - What are the levels of expectation for e.g. publications, training, experience?

Have you been a grant reviewer? - timeline 1 to 2 years ahead Have you been able to experience the grant review process as a reviewer yourself? Why? The best way to see how review panels operate and what they think is most important. The best way to see a variety of grant proposals, both good and bad! How? Volunteer to review for local grant competitions e.g. ARF JILL Take part in opportunities for early career researchers to observe grant panels in action e.g. CIHR Take part in mentoring programs to develop reviewer skills e.g. CIHR Ask the funding agency that you plan to apply to!

Have you read the funding agency's manual for peer reviewers Have you read the funding agency's manual for peer reviewers? - timeline 1 to 2 years ahead Why? To see exactly what instructions reviewers are given on how to evaluate applications. Examples for particular funding competitions – NSERC Discovery Grant rubric, CIHR Project manual? Why so far ahead of time? To be able to shape your application to match the evaluation criteria. e.g. Heavy emphasis on training HQP/ Get students, graduate students, publish with students, … What does the peer review manual tell you about the key evaluation criteria for grants to a specific competition?

Read and follow all instructions Sounds simple, but painfully obvious that too many people do not read and follow all instructions e.g. instructions specifically state that equipment to be funded is only for research purposes, not teaching, but the proposal contains multiple pages of information on the teaching record of the institution and the grant applicant, plus details of the courses that the equipment will support.

Have you read all the funding competition instructions Have you read all the funding competition instructions? - timeline 1 year to 6 months ahead What do the instructions tell you about objectives for a specific competition? Most funding announcements contain links to further documents or webpages of instructions – follow and read all of them!!! If your proposal is not clearly a good fit for the competition objectives, you will struggle to convince reviewers that they should allocate money to your work instead of the work proposed by others that clearly matches objectives e.g. specific disease focus, emphasis on highly novel ideas and large leaps forward, emphasis on basic research or work with immediate commercial potential e.g. NSERC has different types of grants for work that is at different points on the commercialization spectrum – basic research, commercialization potential in 10 years, commercialization potential in 3 years. What kinds of information must be part of the application –CVs for collaborators? training history and permissions to name trainees? data monitoring board for clinical trials? industry partners and cash contributions? These all take time and energy to set up! What kinds of information must be included in your application?

Have you read all the funding competition instructions Have you read all the funding competition instructions? - timeline 6 months ahead What is the required structure of the application for a specific competition? Most funding announcements contain links to further documents or webpages of instructions – follow and read all of them!!! What components need to be included? What are the limits on length and format? Why is this important to know so far ahead? To guide you as you write the application. To avoid last-minute rush in incorporating all the required information e.g quotes for equipment? appendices on methods? figures for preliminary data? letters of support or collaboration?

Stretch break

Write for your reviewers Ready to start working on actually writing the grant application – 6 months before the agency deadline - to give time for multiple rounds of feedback and revisions (we will talk about getting feedback later) - to give time for changing ideas, methods, collaborators, preliminary data, etc. as you write and solidify your ideas Your reviewers need you to explain how and why you meet the foundational needs for a successful grant application: - this is a good idea - you can do the work Explain exactly what reviewers need to know to judge the quality of your application, according to the evaluation criteria and application instructions. Details of information to include and writing strategies are in the ppt from August 2016 – full day workshop on building the grant proposal. JILL – still available?

Is your research question important? - timeline 3 to 6 months ahead Why is your research question important? Why should it be answered now? Who is it important to? Explain for reviewers – how and why question is important. Don’t just describe (what), always explain (what, why, who, where, when, how) Relevant and important to the funding agency? The literature or current events support its importance? Your knowledge users think it’s important?

Can you carry out the proposed work successfully Can you carry out the proposed work successfully? - timeline 3 to 6 months ahead Have you contributed to this area already? Have you used these research methods? Do you have access to necessary expertise and facilities? Already discussed as part of advance preparation, now you are demonstrating feasibility explicitly for your reviewers with this information.

Can you carry out the proposed work successfully Can you carry out the proposed work successfully? - timeline 3 to 6 months ahead Have you predicted possible obstacles and challenges to completing the work? Have you identified ways to overcome or avoid those obstacles? A critical part of demonstrating feasibility to reviewers – you know the field and the methods well enough to understand and avoid or recover from problems during the proposed work.

Have you front-loaded information in your proposal? Have you oriented reviewers quickly to your research question and purpose? Have you started each section and paragraph with a topic sentence? Reviewers are rushed and impatient. Reviewers need to be able to summarize easily for evaluation. How? Full orientation in summary and first page of application – don’t give 3 pages of background and literature review before telling reviewers what you plan to do! Give the essentials, then elaborate later. Front load information for each paragraph and section, so that reviewers know what the section or paragraph discusses and concludes before they read the supporting information in that paragraph.

Are you writing for people who are not experts in this field? Have you used short, direct sentences? Have you used less complicated language? Your reviewers are likely not going to be fully familiar with the details of your research area. Your reviewers may know about only one aspect of your proposal e.g. methods. Your reviewers may be from another field entirely – intelligent people, but they don’t know what you know – explain it for them. Writing style needs to be engaging, brisk, clear – easy and interesting to read As simple as needed, but no simpler. Simple is not dumbed down, simple is clear for your audience Reduce or explain technical terms, avoid jargon if possible.

Stretch break

Get feedback Useful to get feedback at multiple stages. We have already discussed talking over your ideas and research question with colleagues 1 to 2 years in advance - to refine your ideas and get feedback on whether the research question is important and interesting - to see whether others think that the proposed work is feasible with your skills and resources, using the methods that you propose. What other stages are good points for getting feedback? - after collecting and analyzing preliminary data - after writing a first draft of your proposal

Have you arranged an informal review? - timeline 3 months ahead Do you have 2 or 3 informal reviewers who are successful and critical (past reviewers for your competition, people who have been funded) Have you asked your reviewers to comment specifically on how well your proposal meets the particular requirements of your competition? Reviewers do not need to be experts in your field – better for them to reflect the types of reviewers that you expect for the actual competition. How can you find out about the types of reviewers who will assess your application in your target competition? Colleagues and mentors can be helpful, but may be less critical, may be less thorough, may know the field too well to see where competition reviewers might stumble.

Are you re-submitting a proposal that was not funded Are you re-submitting a proposal that was not funded? - timeline 3 months ahead (or more) Have you fixed everything that previous reviewers were concerned about? Have you explained how and why you fixed things? These days, getting funded for a first submission is rare (don’t take it personally!). An unfunded application is never fun, but can be an excellent learning experience. Reviewer comments can be particularly useful in revising for re-submission. Preparing a strong resubmission may take extra time if you need to get more preliminary data, get publications out, add collaborators, graduate trainees, …

Questions? Informal discussion? Any requests or suggestions for related topics or follow-up topics that could be covered in 1-hour webinars?