When the faculty were asked to identify the causes of their dissatisfaction and what would improve their satisfaction, 53% percent of the sample said increased compensation, 46% said modifications to teaching schedules or loads, and 34% cited new technology or better access to technology support.

At the same time, the research efforts and consequent funding levels of faculty have been drastically reduced. Many faculty were unable to go to their labs, schedule meetings with colleagues and connect with donor agencies, which has resulted in difficulties which may have long term effects. More than almost two years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientific community is still feeling the effects of the vastly disruptive event — and may for many years to come.

Northwestern University led study found that although researchers’ productivity levels have mostly returned to pre-pandemic highs, scientists who did not pursue COVID-19 related research initiated 36% fewer new projects in 2021 compared to 2019. This dramatic decline in new projects suggests the pandemic’s impact on science may be longer lasting than commonly imagined (Dashung Wang – Nature Communications).

What Can Be Done?

Administrative support of faculty:

Although it is also true that the university administrators have been and continue to be at a loss of what to do, ongoing communication with faculty could begin to alleviate some of the problems. Faculty feedback that is taken seriously and implemented can greatly increase faculty confidence and reduce stress.

Rewarding faculty efforts in research:

Institutions throughout the US wish to stand-out as research institutions with high productivity on the part of their faculty; however, it is not unusual to want faculty to “produce” without a reward system in place. This is especially the case with teaching institutions where the teaching load is such that it does not allow time for productive research and for seeking funding.

Modifications of teaching schedules and loads:

Hybrid teaching approaches, now becoming more and more common, may increase faculty loads for some. While some faculty can easily adapt to these new approaches, others cannot, and as a consequence may lose the quality time they need to pursue research and grant funding.

Increasing support infrastructures for grant writing:

In the wake of COVID-19 many sponsored research offices have reduced staff and administrative support services previously given to faculty. Fortifying such services as team building, rewards for interdisciplinary research, training of faculty, and content reviews and editing of proposals can go a long-way toward alleviating the effects of COVID-19.

This is only the beginning of the introspection and creativity needed to address the post COVID-19 world for colleges and universities. Not only do institutions need to tackle the immediate concerns of faculty members, but broader issues such as tenure, promotion, and economic and philosophical support for faculty research need to be addressed.  At the end of the day, how institutions deal with the fallout of COVID-19 in the short and long term will define the recovery of the academic community.

The post How Can the Academic Community Recover from the Impact of COVID-19 appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The questions that follow are catalysts that will help provide initial answers to where your research will start, but after answering them, you may discover that it might not be where your research will end up. These questions will not only shape your search for the answer(s) to the problem, but will also increase your understanding of additional and alternative information that will be needed to clarify the road map and direction of your project.

Although the list of questions that will assist you in constructing and focusing your project can be extensive, the ones below center on the idea, purpose, focus, approach and institutional support:

Idea questions: What is the argument you are making about your idea? Why is your idea timely, urgent, compelling, and unique? Why does your idea matter? How might others challenge your idea? What kind of sources will you need to support your idea?

Purpose questions: What is the purpose of your research? How will you achieve the purpose? What will change once your proposal is implemented? How will you know that changes have taken place as you implement the proposal?

Narrowing your focus questions: Why is your proposal needed to advance the studies within your field? How are your preliminary data relevant? Why did you choose this way of approaching the gap in knowledge versus other options? What results will be evaluated in your project? How will you evaluate the results? What difficulties might appear within your research plan? How is your research limited?

Justifying the research questions: Who cares about the postulation of your argument? How is present opinion divided? How important is it to have the right answer? What are the implications of various possible answers?

Research methods questions: What are the variables to be measured during your research project? What population and samples will be used in your research project, including explanations of sampling and procedures? What methods will you apply to collect primary and secondary information? What might be any relevant biases in your methods and the means by which these biases would be overcome?

Institutional questions: How will this project capitalize on your institution’s/department’s strengths? How will this project help your institution/department overcome some of its weaknesses? How will your institution/department support you to succeed?

Science begins by first asking relevant questions and then seeking answers. The manner in which your research will unfold will emerge from the critical questions that you will need to answer prior to building your research proposal. These questions will assist you in solidifying your idea and eventually lead you to critical, significant, and substantive insights into the purpose, focus, and methods of your research proposal.

The post Critical Questions to Clarify Your Research appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Planning Ahead: “What are the steps I need to take before I write?”

Grant writing takes time. This includes excellent research, exceptional writing, understanding the donor’s mission, making the match, collaborating with colleagues, planning strategically, and developing an outstanding business plan. If your proposal is prepared correctly, it will have higher chances of rising to the top of the competition and receiving the funds. In the planning process, laying out proposal steps clearly and realistically can be achieved by organizing the activities in terms of the time it will take to effectively accomplish them.

2. Matching the Idea With the Donor: “How can you assure that you found the right donor?”

 One of the most fatal mistakes any grant writer can make is to ignore the interests of the donor. “Making the match” means aligning your mission and your funding request with the donor’s mission. The closer both of you are in what you wish to accomplish, the more likely you will be funded. Also, looking at funded projects will give you a very good idea of the donor’s interests and focus. Ultimately, donors do not care what you need or want funded; they care about what they wish to fund.

3.  Being Concise and to the Point: “What steps will narrow the scope of my proposal?”     

 One of the major reasons for proposal rejection is that the request is overly ambitious and tries to tackle far more than can be accomplished within the timeline of the grant. Rather than trying to solve every problem related to your request, focus on one or two issues that can realistically be resolved within budget and time constraints of the proposal. Also, many grants require the consideration of various potential factors before concluding that the idea is doable, focused, and promising. You need to envision as many of these elements as possible to be certain that you are on the right path. Narrowing the scope of your idea to a smaller scale is often a much safer and more successful approach.

4. Knowing the Review Process: “How do I understand the proposal review process?”

To successfully survive the review process, you must know the review criteria by which you will be judged and who is reviewing your proposal. In some cases this is easy, but in others, where the process is blind, it is extremely difficult. In the latter case, you can ask the administrator in charge of the process what the experience and expertise of the reviewers will be. Your reviewers have a very short window to review your proposal and worse yet, an even shorter window for the panel discussion. The easier you make it for the reviewers to understand your idea, the greater your chances of being funded.

5. Networking and Collaboration: “How do I identify collaborators to strengthen my proposal?”

Creating effective partnerships requires collective vision, purpose, buy-in, and mutual respect. Without these elements, it is difficult to maintain the momentum of true collaboration. Each partner must be able to contribute knowledge and expertise that would be missing without their involvement. The complexity of many projects requires interdisciplinary efforts and networking. Understanding this, funding agencies now believe in the power of partnerships; and so should you.

At the end of the day, there are many components to a grant proposal. The first and most important is spending the time to understand the donor, then positioning all the pieces of the puzzle effectively together, and finally writing a stellar request. The pieces must include careful planning, focus, and collaboration.

The post Five Common Problems Facing Grant Writers – Part II appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Timelines: “We can never find the time to dedicate to writing grant proposals.”

The most important solution is to work proactively rather than reactively. One participant said that her not-for-profit developed a yearly timeline of the grants they wished to submit, rather than waiting for the announcements, which can come late as 10 days prior to the submission deadline. This may sound like a difficult undertaking, but once done, it will be easy to match the amount of labor to available personnel and understand the capacity of the organization.

2. Rejections: “We fear rejections and when we get them, we often feel angry and frustrated, almost to the point of not wanting to rewrite the proposal.”

The answer is to understand that a grant should be viewed as an opportunity, and not taken personally. If the team has a strategic and broad picture of the funding landscape for which they apply throughout the year, it will be understood that some grants will fail. Ultimately, when it comes to requests for funding, one has to place their ego in their pocket.

3. Telling a good story: “The reviewers said that we need to tell an enthusiastic story, but it was difficult for us to understand what they meant.”

The universal answer is to engage the donor. Thus, as a proposal writer, one must know how grants will be evaluated and, if possible, who the evaluators will be. Connecting with donors and reviewers is vital to successfully getting funded. The more one knows about them, the more effectively one can spark their interest with the story.

4. Innovation: “We had a difficult time understanding what the donor meant by innovation.”

The answer here is that innovative concepts emerge from preliminary data, pilot studies, and extensive research. In almost all cases, donors are looking for innovative approaches that will solve an existing problem or contribute to advancement in the field.

5. Overambitious idea: “Our grant was rejected because the idea was overambitious. How do we narrow the focus?”

Rather than trying to solve every problem related to the project at hand, it is best to focus on one or two issues that can realistically be resolved within the budgetary and time constraints of the proposal. Narrowing the scope of the idea to a smaller scale is often a much safer and more successful approach.

The participants chose these key obstacles, for it takes time to narrow ideas, assure innovation and write a good story. In the following blog, I will discuss other obstacles that my audience brought to the table.

The post Five Common Problems Facing Grant Writers appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The best way to collect information about the problem is for you to conduct and document both a formal and informal needs assessment for your program in the target or service area. The information you provide should be both factual and directly related to the problem addressed. Areas for you to document are:

• Purpose for developing the proposal – what need you identified or what problem will be solved. You also have to address why you identified this particular need and why you and your organization are credible and able to make a substantial difference in terms of the solution.

• Beneficiaries – who they are, how they will benefit, how they were chosen, how many were chosen and how you came up with this approach must be documented and specifically addressed.

• Social and economic costs – who and what will be affected and by how much. Here you will need to address the percentage of change you expect and why. Obviously, cost is always a consideration, and if you can demonstrate that your intervention will save institutional and individual costs, this will be to your benefit.

• The nature of the problem – provide as much hard evidence as possible. This will be accomplished via the literature review, your past experience, surveys, and past and present data that demonstrate your past and anticipated future success with the targeted beneficiaries.

• Objectives – the specific way you will solve the problem, including the resources needed, how they will be used, and to what end. The goal and objectives will be the “heart of your proposal” that together will constitute your plan of operation.

• Sustainability plan – explain what will happen to your project when funding has been exhausted. If there is a way to institutionalize the approach  (e.g. train the trainers), this will demonstrate that the donor’s funding will make an ongoing difference, not just a one-time intervention.

There are several types of data you might want to collect, depending on the project: historical, geographic, statistical, as well as studies completed in your field. Unless otherwise specified, a mix of qualitative and quantitative data usually works best.

The need statement will ultimately be about an area of concern, a condition to be improved upon, a difficulty to be eliminated, or a troubling question that exists in scholarly literature that requires understanding and deliberate intervention. Making the need and your credibility to solve the problem clear to the donor, will make the difference between being funded and rejected.

The post The Core of Your Proposal: The Problem Statement appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Every donor is unique. For example, the institutes that comprise the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have dissimilar missions, and each has its own culture and requirements. The same can be said of the Department of Defense (DoD) and a myriad of other donors. Chasing the money rather than good ideas is a major flaw. Donors do not fund those focused on money, they fund those who are passionate about a good idea that aligns with their goals. Consequently, here are the five things you need to know about the language and culture of any donor before you write:

• What are the priorities of the donor? Each donor has its own priorities. For example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) encourages interdisciplinary programs and transformative ideas, and their definition and characteristics appear on their website. The DoD has five major foci: peacekeeping and war-fighting efforts, homeland security, evacuation and humanitarian causes. Each of these subcategories has their own mission and language. Turning to foundations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation seeks to understand the world’s inequities. “Whether the challenge is low-yield crops in Africa or low graduation rates in Los Angeles, we listen and learn so we can identify pressing problems that get too little attention. Then we consider whether we can make a meaningful difference with our influence and our investments, whether it is a grant or a contract.” As this demonstrates, each donor clearly addresses their funding culture via their priorities.
• What is the mission of the donor? All donors have their own missions, which give us an understanding of how they visualize their funding priorities. For example, the NSF’s mission is: “To envision a nation that capitalizes on new concepts in science and engineering and provides global leadership in advancing research and education.” The NIH’s mission is: “To seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.” The Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP) run by the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command of DoD has a similar emphasis to NIH, but its mission is to relate health research to the armed forces. Even though both NIH and DoD fund innovative ideas to combat disease, their missions and foci are different.
• What have donors funded in the past and why? One of the best insights into a funding agency is who and what they funded in the past and how much money they awarded. Federal donors list abstracts of winning proposals, along with the name of the funded institution and the Principal Investigator/Project Director. Accordingly, we can instantly know who they consider credible and their focus. Foundations will often describe what they have funded in the past on their website. Their 990pf tax forms will also show how their funds were allocated. The decisive question for you to ask is how your idea and their funding patterns match.
• What are the evaluation criteria for awarding grants? How grants are evaluated is one of the best indicators of the donor’s culture. This will include the evaluation criteria, who the evaluators are and how they are chosen. For some donors, such as NIH and NSF, reviewer selection is not a blind process as reviewers who are chosen have a deep understanding of the agency culture. In the case of foundations, it is more difficult to discern who the reviewers are, but one good way is to understand the vision of the leadership and the makeup of the board, which will be reflected in the reviewers chosen.
• What is the language of the donor? In many cases donors speak different “languages”, which are in the same family of languages. For example, the various US Department of Education Title Programs (e.g. Title III or Title VI), address different topics. Some address underrepresented groups, others international and others centers of excellence. Similarly, NSF directorates and NIH institutes have different missions, speak to different audiences, and address their vision of the world on their own terms. It is these “languages” that need to be understood, spoken, and incorporated into grants in order to give you the competitive edge.

In conclusion, submitting similar proposals to different donors is a fatal flaw. In order to succeed, we have to understand first and seek to be understood secondly.

The post 5 Things to Know About the Language and Culture of a Grant Donor appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Why do you want to do this? The immediate answer should be because you care about the idea, which will serve either a specific population in need or fill an important knowledge gap in the field. Another important reason for your desire to do this is your passion for the subject. This is a key element in grant writing that should be expressed in an honest and convincing manner. Unfortunately, this is a major pitfall for many investigators who have been taught to write manuscripts, which require a dispassionate writing style that utilizes a passive voice.

Why does it need to be done? Your own hunch is the first step in answering this question. You probably have worked in the field and noticed over and over again that something is missing and needs to be corrected. The next step is a thorough review of the literature that will address what is absent in solving the problem that you propose to tackle. It might also be that you have made a thorough investigation of what your population needs via questionnaires, observations, and discussion. Their answers will lead to the intervention and the reason you are about to apply for a grant. At this point, you will need to address the significance of your project in an innovative and transformative way.

Why should we believe that you can do it? If your project is feasible, focused and persuasive, the next step will be to convince your donor that the project is worth doing and that you are the best person to do it. The single most persuasive item that you can provide is evidence of your credibility via your extensive experience in the field, your academic training, publications, synergistic activities, and if the donor requires, letters of support from colleagues, supervisors, partners and mentors. The same would apply to your team and organization. In other words, is your team credible, and is your organization supportive?

How are you going to do it? This will be your business plan, which will be logically written in the prescribed format that the donor requests. The “how” requirements can vary from grant to grant. For project grants, it will include the goal and the SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-Bound) objectives. For a research grant to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), it will include your hypothesis, specific aims and methodology. For others such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), your intellectual merit and broader impacts will delineate how you will do it. This section will require specificity, creativity and a keen understanding that there may be obstacles along the way, but that you are prepared to address and solve them when you encounter them.

Where have you gone for the information? The steps you have taken to understand the need for your project will be shown by the literature review and the preliminary data. For example, have you thoroughly researched the problem? Did you address the “so what” question? Did you seek evidence-based information? An example of the latter might be the best evidence for diagnosis, treatment and prevention options for health disorders that are tailored to the characteristics and context of the individual patient and the resources of the provider.

What distinguishes winning proposals are the answers to the above questions, which ultimately translate to your thorough understanding of the problem and your passion and fervor in undertaking the project. Your credibility as the director of the project and the credibility of your institution will also be key contributors to a successful proposal. At the end of the day, the pathway to being funded will depend on clear writing, a thorough literature review and a detailed and focused business plan that walks the donor through the actions that you will take to succeed.

The post Five Key Questions for Grant Success appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. What types of grants are available for my research and my institution?

Federal, state, foundation, and corporate grants are available to faculty, teachers, K-12 schools, nonprofit organizations, and colleges and universities. The primary source of grant funding by far is the Federal Government, followed by individual giving, and foundation and corporate support. Federal funding includes both federal entitlements or formula funds, and competitive grants.

2. How much time does it take to prepare a grant proposal?

The amount of time and work it takes to prepare a grant application is a direct function of the number of people on your project team. Most grants have four to six weeks between the time the application is released and when the proposal is due. For larger, more complex grant proposals, this may not be enough time. Planning well in advance of the application release date can give you a head start and alleviate some of the pressure.

3. Who should I include on my grant writing team?

In addition to the content experts (PIs, Co-PIs, or Project Directors), every grant writing team should include key administrators. These are the people who have authority to make administrative decisions for the project, which can be invaluable during the proposal writing process. In addition, you may include personnel from the budget office, graphic designers, editors and grant reviewers, evaluators, technology coordinators, statisticians, and – in some rare cases – marketing consultants.

4. What are the key components of a grant proposal?

Competitive grants require a specific type of application. Although state and federal agencies and especially foundations have different requirements, the basic parts of a grant application remain the same. Those components are:

• Summary or Abstract is the most important part of your proposal because it is the first impression you make on the reviewer.
• Needs Statement/ Statement of Significance is the reason for your project and makes the argument for why the grant should be funded. Relevant data and research, such as surveys, preliminary studies, a literature review, and identified successful models of previous studies will all substantiate the needs of the targeted population or for your research project.
• Goals and Objectives are your plan of operation, and must be aligned with the project’s identified needs. A goal will be the end result of your project or research, and the objectives will prove how the goal will be met in measurable and quantifiable terms.
• Activities explain how each objective will unfold to meet the goal.
• Timelines describe the project activities in terms of deadlines. These may include your plan of operation, evaluation, and budget.
• Evaluation Plan is one of the most critical components for a project grant application, especially with the current heightened level of accountability. You must detail a comprehensive evaluation plan that incrementally tracks the effectiveness of your proposed objectives.
• Outcomes are critical in all evidence-based grant proposals. Outlining the short-, mid-, and long-term outcomes with specific benchmarks for success is vital for the donor’s understanding of the ultimate purpose for the funding. A helpful tool in developing and demonstrating the process indicators for successful outcomes of your proposal is the logic model.
• Budgets estimate as accurately as possible what the cost of each activity will be in personnel and non-personnel costs. Be certain to include a cost for each activity mentioned in your narrative, since it aligns directly with your budget.

5. What does it take to win a grant?

Many grant applications are accompanied by scoring criteria or rubrics. Read them carefully, because they will give you specific guidelines for creating a winning proposal. In the absence of a scoring rubric, read through the grant guidelines and make a careful list of all the items you must answer. As you fill out the application, check off each item so your proposal is in full compliance with the grant requirements. Aside from knowing the donor’s prerequisites to win a grant, you must have a well-crafted idea, excellent research, collaboration, innovation, and need for your proposed proposal.

6. What do I do if my grant is rejected?

This will depend on the scores of your application, rejection comments or letter. If your proposal has been rejected for a flawed idea or because you applied to the wrong donor, you should not reapply. However, if you have been rejected for defects in some of your activities, lack of examples, or a weak evaluation, you should speak with the donor concerning their recommendations on what needs to be fixed, and reapply as soon as possible.

As you develop the grant application, many more questions will arise. These can be answered by experienced colleagues at your institution or your grant administration office. Others, which deal directly with your expertise, can only be answered by you. The range of universal questions is wide; however, the ability to answer them effectively will lead you in the right direction for being funded. Most importantly, success depends on a well-crafted idea, extensive research, collaboration, innovation, and perseverance.

The post 6 Most Asked Questions about Grants appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.