2. Grants

3. Who Am I?

4. I’ve published about 200 papers in journals such as
Science
Psychological Review
Psychological Science
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Cognition, Cognitive Science
J. Memory & Language
Nature Neuroscience
Cerebral Cortex
Journal of Neuroscience
Journal of Educational Psychology

5. I’ve published about 200 papers in journals such as
Science
Psychological Review
Psychological Science
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Cognition, Cognitive Science
J. Memory & Language
Nature Neuroscience
Cerebral Cortex
Journal of Neuroscience
Journal of Educational Psychology

6. And one book:

7. Funding history Canada: McGill University, Montreal United States
NSERC (Main Canadian research funding agency)
FCAR (Province of Quebec)
United States
National Institute of Mental Health
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
National Institue on Aging

8. Rick’s First Grant as PI
“Reading-related phonological processes.” $694,160 (9/88-4/93) from NICHD/NIH.
My first grant as PI
NSERC (Canada)
$14,000
3 years
Canadian dollars!

9. Grant reviewing history
Reviewer, study sections for many agencies NSERC (Canada) NIH National Science Foundation (NSF) Institute for Education Sciences (IES) Other countries

10. The US funding system differs from yours What can we tell you that is helpful? Hypothesis: some basic principles, strategies are universal. But with important local differences.

11. The research
Original, interesting, important, needed?
Theory and translation.
Appropriate for the granting mechanism.
(Often: Talk to project officer before submitting)

12. 2. Methods are crucial
What tools will you be using?
Data acquisition
Data analysis
Methods change: Are yours current? Appropriate for question?
Are you extending methods in a potentially important way?
Do you have sufficient mastery of these methods?
(will there be consultants on the project if necessary)
Do you have pilot data, or previous published work?
Give the reviewer reason to think,
“Yes. This project will yield results: robust, reliable data.”

13. 3. How the grant is written
Clarity: Can it be understood by
someone who knows the research area
someone who does not
Tone: Be politely assertive, not tentative.
Tell reader about the work, don’t lead them through it
State why the research is important, what it will mean.
Give the reader a reason to think
“Yes. This research is needed. I must strongly support it.”

14. 3. How the grant is written (more)
Not too much, not too little challenge. Depends on agency.
Appropriate level of specificity about proposed studies
Design, data analysis plan
Connection to previous research
Do not review entire literature. You won’t have space. Review enough to motivate your research, demonstrate knowledge of the area.
Criticizing previous research to motivate your work?
Or just showing why your work is needed?

15. 4. About you, the researcher
Reviewer is asking: are you capable of conducting the research?
Do you have a track record in this area?
(How does the agency weigh track record vs. quality of proposed research?)
Do you have pilot data to show?

16. 5. My grant wasn’t funded; what do I do?
If the agency allows revise and resubmit:
Talk to the program officer.
Attend to the positive and negative points in the reviews.
Respond to concerns, do not ignore.
May require clarification.
May require change of plans.
Reviews vary in quality, but you have to live with them.
You may disagree, they may have made errors, but you have to address them.

17. Consider alternative funding sources
Foundations:
In the US, non-profit foundations support research
McDonnell Foundation
Spencer Foundation
William T. Grant Foundation
others
Universities usually have their own funds to allocate
Startup funding
In-house grants

18. Should you follow the money?

19. Good luck!!