1. Overview of Objectives of Workshop Professor Ayo Ojuawo Department of Paediatrics University of Ilorin

2. Objectives of workshop This workshop will focus on the: Concept of grantsmanship Types of research proposals and outline their dimensions Key elements in statement of the problem and literature review Theoretical and conceptual framework in research proposal Research method - qualitative and quantitative Analysis of data, significance of research project, and timeline Project management/implementation, report writing etc. Ethics in medical research Modalities in budgeting for research projects Sourcing for research grants

3. Expected Outcomes By the end of this workshop, participants will: Appreciate the key issues in grantsmanship Recognize types of research projects and their key elements; Understand the strategies for implementing research projects Appreciate ethics in research projects Know the essence of scientific writing Identify the sources of research grants Sources of research grants

4. RESEARCH GRANTSMANSHIP

5. Outline of the Presentation The presentation will discuss: Accessing Research Grants Scaling the first hurdle Review Process for the short-listed proposals Scoring proposals Criteria for Selection of proposals Concluding Remarks

6. Introduction This presentation will focus on grantsmanship including the key criteria that are used to assess research proposals. GRANTSMANSHIP is defined as the capacity of researchers to attract funds from prospective funders towards their pet projects. It is simply about attracting grants for research projects from various sources

7. Research Defn: Careful study or investigation in order to discover new facts / information (dictionary) Research is an activity with the goal of generating “generalizeable knowledge” Lay man – Research is “searching again” If the goal is to generate knowledge relevant only to a particular individual or program, its not research Research should be scientifically sound to be ethical

8. Accessing Research Grants Depends on having: Adequate knowledge of the funding agencies Visit their web site to access information Adequate knowledge of the research agenda of the funding agencies Adequate knowledge of their specific guidelines for proposal development Adequate knowledge of past proposals that have received funding from the targeted agencies

9. Scaling through the First Hurdle Depends on: Strict compliance with the basic guidelines e.g. using prescribed form, or forwarding letter of intent etc. Strict compliance with such mundane things like the prescribed number of words for each section of the proposal. Strict compliance with guide on submission of proposal, whether by e-mail or courier etc.

10. Scaling Cont’d Strict compliance with the composition of the research team Strict compliance with deadline for submission of proposal. Not a second beyond the stipulated time Strict compliance with budget limit for the round of the competition Strict compliance with other guidelines such as inclusion of the CVs of members of the team etc. Please note that only those that comply are shortlisted for consideration

11. Review Process for the Short-listed Proposals All short-listed proposals are usually reviewed by two or three experts Reviewers are guided by a scoring format In general, proposals are assessed on the basis of how well the research teams demonstrate clarity on the: 1. Statement of the problem including a review of the ‘current’ relevant literature

12. Review Process Cont’d General and specific objectives of the study Conceptual framework of the study Hypotheses to be tested where applicable. Hypothesis – defined as a probable answer to a research question Methodology: COMPREHENSIVE Analysis of data Significance of the study ETHICAL CONSIDERATION Timeline Budget

13. Scoring of Proposals Total marks / point are often set at 100 with the following as guide to the reviewers: Statement of the Problem (25 points) General and Specific objectives (5 points) Conceptual framework (15 points) Hypotheses (5 points) Methodology (25 points) Analysis of data (10 points) Ethical consideration (5 points) Timeline (5 points) Budget (5 points)

14. Scoring Cont’d Each assessor is expected to sum the scores for each proposal and rank them in order of performance Each assessor will render the final report to the funder for consideration A Scientific Committee (SC) is set up to consider and take decision on assessors’ reports

15. Criteria for Selection Merit (based on the top scorers in the competition) Thematic Area(s) Gender Geography Other extraneous factors such as bending over to fund one or two that are not very good due to the poor skill of the proposers but have potentials

16. COLLABORATION Very important Interdisciplinary Interdepartmental – Medical / Religion – Medical / Engineering – Medical / Languages etc Institutional Multi-centered etc Collaboration enhances the chances of the Researchers.

18. Radiant Warmer (UITH, Ilorin)

19. Please note that the journey to successful grantsmanship is always a long one I thank you for your attention