Grant Writing Articles- September 1, 2009

Grant Writing Articles:

Article 1: Competing for Funding as an Early-Career Researcher

Article 2: Observations on Writing Center-Level Proposals

Article 1
By Lucy Deckard
Getting Started: Competing for Funding as an Early-Career Researcher

Competing for grants as a new assistant professor just starting your research career can be daunting. Success rates for proposals to many federal agencies have been declining in recent years. Add to that the fact that you will be competing with established researchers with proven track records and a long list of publications, and it may be tempting to throw up your hands and start looking into other career options.  However, many early career researchers have been successful in winning funding, and by learning what worked for them, you can greatly improve your chances of winning research funding early in your career. 

Here are some things you can do to improve your changes of winning research funding.

First, learn from others.  Seek out faculty in your field who have been successful at winning research funding.  Ask them what agencies and programs fund your kind of research.  What are their expectations?  How does the funding agency operate?  Have they been a reviewer for these agencies?  If so, are there common mistakes that they see in proposals that they’ve reviewed?  How did you get your first few grants?  What advice would they give a new faculty member who is pursuing his or her first grant? Ask if the faculty member might be willing to let you see a successful proposal.  In addition, enroll in workshops and seminars about grant writing; many universities offer these (Texas A&M’s Office of Proposal Development announces workshops and seminars at http://opd.tamu.edu/seminars  and posts presentation and background materials from past seminars at http://opd.tamu.edu/seminar-materials .)

Second, establish a research agenda that you plan to follow in the first few years of your research career, and publish in that area.   Having a firm idea of the research directions you want to pursue will enable you to select the grants that will help you to develop a clear line of scholarship, and publications will help you to establish the credentials that proposal reviewers will be looking for.  The details of how you should go about developing a research agenda vary considerably by discipline, but there are several considerations that you should take into account from a funding perspective:
 Is your research agenda sufficiently separated from that of your graduate advisor so that you will be able to establish an independent career?
 Is your research agenda in an area that you are passionate about and would gladly spend the next few years working on?
 Do you have a strong publication record that will support your chosen research area or in a closely-related area, or do you have a plan to establish a strong record soon?  If the area is very new, will your previous publications demonstrate your qualifications to pursue this research area?
 Is your research agenda in an exciting, vigorous, high-impact area of scholarship (rather than an area that has already been well-researched, where most progress is now incremental)?
 Is your research agenda in an area that is currently funded by agencies or foundations, or is it likely to be funded soon?

This is not to say that you should plan your future research based solely on any of these considerations, and the importance of any of these questions will vary by discipline.  However, it is wise for any early career researcher to know the answers to the above questions before deciding on a particular research agenda.

Find out your department’s expectations regarding external research funding.  Expectations vary a lot by discipline and department, so talk to your Department Head, colleagues and mentors, and ask them:  Should you start writing proposals immediately, or would your time be better spent generating preliminary data and publications? How important is external funding in the tenure decision?  Are certain kinds of funding more highly regarded than others when considering a candidate for tenure?  The answers to these questions will help you decide when to start working on research proposals and what type of funding to pursue. 

Learn how to look for funding opportunities in your research area, and carefully select which grants to pursue.  In addition to talking to your colleagues, you can find funding opportunities using a range of tools on the internet.  Grants.gov lists all federally funded grants available.  Texas A&M’s Office of Proposal Development provides links to these and other websites for finding funding.  They also list funding opportunities, updated daily, and publish a monthly newsletter. You can find them at opd.tamu.edu .

Be strategic and realistic when selecting which grants to pursue.  That $2 million grant may look intriguing, but funders are generally hesitant to award a large grant to a new researcher who has little or no track record as a Principal Investigator.  Start with smaller grants first, perform well on them and then progress to larger grants.  If research funding is available for your research area from a variety of sources, it is often wise to pursue less competitive grants, such as state funding or small grants from foundations, in parallel with grants from the large federal agencies.  Internal grants may also be available from your university; these may be quite small, but can also be used to establish a track record.

Consider collaborating. Another way to establish a track record is to collaborate with a more established researcher as a co-PI on a grant.  This approach can allow an early-career researcher to demonstrate her or his ability to conduct research, generate publications and get to know program directors at the funding agency.  However, when considering such a collaboration, it is important to structure the project to ensure that your interests are protected.  You should be responsible for a clear, identifiable part of the project.  This will allow you to develop a track record that is clearly your own and is generally best accomplished by collaborating with another researcher (or team of researchers) with different, highly distinguishable areas of expertise.  In this way, the expertise that you bring to the project will be clear.

Consider applying to programs for early-career researchers. There are several reasons you should consider pursuing these kinds of grants.  These programs are designed to help build the careers of promising early-career researchers and are often highly prestigious, so even disregarding the funds awarded, the prestige of winning such an award can enhance your career and provide you with additional credibility when pursuing other grants.   When applying for these kinds of grants, you will not be competing with established researchers with lengthy funding track records.  By definition, all applicants will be near the beginning of their research careers, thus leveling the field somewhat.  However, this does not mean that applicants will have no track record; publications in the proposed area of research and preliminary data are generally required to make a proposal competitive.  Therefore, just as with any other program, it is important to analyze the funding agency’s expectations and eligibility criteria and make strategic decisions regarding when it makes sense to apply.  A list of these types of grants is posted at http://opd.tamu.edu/funding-opportunities/funding-opportunities-by-category/programs-for-junior-faculty.html .

Network with other researchers in your field.  Just as you are expected to participate in the scholarly community in your discipline, becoming integrated into the funding community - researchers in your field who have been funded by an agency, served as reviewers, or work at the agency. Developing these connections will help you to stay informed about changes at the agency, understand priorities of the agency and develop collaborations with other researchers in the community.  While at conferences, seek out program directors from agencies that fund research in your area.  Attend their presentations and talk to them afterwards about their programs, interests and priorities (be sure you have done your homework first by reading the agency’s website and other documentation).  Similarly, introduce yourself to researchers in your field who are well funded.  It is likely that they may eventually be reviewers of one of your proposals.  The degree to which personal connections affect funding decisions varies widely by funding agency.  However, as long as you make a good impression, it is always better to have met program directors and potential reviewers.  Once you have started a relationship, however briefly, it will be easier to contact them later for information and assistance, and you can build on that relationship as you meet at subsequent conferences and meetings. 
 
Allow time to produce a well-written proposal.   As a new faculty member, you will be very busy. Ask yourself, “Do I have enough time to produce a well-written proposal before the deadline?”  If you don’t realistically have time to produce a good proposal this semester, then it is better to either plan to apply later or to rearrange your commitments to make time.  Producing a hastily-written proposal in all-night sessions the week the proposal is due will cost you precious sleep, waste time you could have spent on your other commitments, irritate proposal administrators at your institution who need time to prepare budgets and get appropriate signatures,  and irritate reviewers who have to read a poorly-written proposal.  Producing a good proposal takes time; understanding that will help you avoid frustration, disappointment and strained relationships with your administrators.

And, finally, persevere intelligently.  If you talk to well-funded researchers, they will tell you that they have a drawer full of proposals that were declined for funding. In fact, even extremely successful researchers typically have had more proposals declined than funded. As a faculty member just starting your career, you should expect to have your first several proposals declined. 

When a funding agency decides not to fund your proposal, there are three ways to respond: 1) get discouraged and stop applying for funding; 2) disregard the reviews and resubmit essentially the same proposal, figuring maybe you’ll get more intelligent reviewers next time; or 3) look on it as a learning process, thoughtfully revise your proposal in response to the reviewers’ comments and resubmit in the next funding cycle.  Early career faculty who have been successful in winning funding take the third approach.  They expect to have to revise and resubmit proposals, just as they often have to revise submitted publications.  They understand that reviewers’ comments are meant to provide guidance, and they study them carefully.  In cases where it is clear from the reviews that their idea is not a good fit for that program or agency, they either look for a new funding source that is a better fit, or they try a different idea. 

The key is not to give up or take rejections personally.  Each proposal you submit is a step in the process of getting closer to getting funded.

Article 2
By Mike Cronan, Lucy Deckard, John Ivy & Robyn Pearson
Competitive Center-Level Proposals

There are many circumstances that affect whether a Center-level proposal is funded, some of  which are beyond the PI’s control.  However, to win Center funding it is absolutely required that each center proposal submitted is of high quality and defines a clear research vision that is mapped to the framework of the agency’s center concept.  Competitive centers represent an accumulation of marginal advantage, and in order to produce a competitive proposal, the planning, development and writing process must be well-structured and driven by strategic insights into the agency’s objectives for funding the center program.

1.0 Center Proposals: Best Practices Overview
(Based on observations of successful Center-level proposal efforts)

Preparation:
The Principal Investigator
• The PI has a clear vision of the rationale, goals and focus of the proposed Center. (The PI can clearly articulate why the Center should be funded rather than just funding the individual research projects proposed by the Center.)
• The PI is familiar with the goals and expectations of the particular Center program, and has visited other Centers and formed relationships with other Center directors.
• The PI has participated as a reviewer of Center level proposals for a funding agency.

The Team
• The PI and co-PIs have identified partners and initiated discussions before the Center-level solicitation has been released (often starting a year or more in advance).
• Center participants have been selected based on fit with the Center vision and focus, rather than trying to develop a Center vision based on a pre-existing community of participants.
• The Center research focuses on an exciting area that is of special interest to the agency.
• Participants in the Center have collaborated previously and have joint publications.
• The PI and co-PIs have developed at least a preliminary list of activities in which the Center will engage, and it is clear how the research activities are different from what is already being done.
• The Center participant team is multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional.
• Experts in education, outreach and assessment have been included in the participant team.
• Center participants are contacted and agree to participate relatively early in the process.
• Center collaborators (e.g., industrial partners, external advisory board members, national labs) are identified and contacted relative early in the process to allow their input and to allow time for letters of collaboration to be approved by their management (often required for industry and national labs).

The Project
• Some innovative aspect has been included in the broader impacts or education component, with the appropriate expert included (e.g., a faculty member from Communications to help with and study interdisciplinary communication; a sociologist to facilitate and study formation of learning communities via the internet, etc.).
• University administration (department heads, deans, etc.) are kept informed and are supportive of the Center effort.

The Proposal Writing Process:
• At least 3 months has been allotted for the actual writing of the proposal.
• A proposal writing plan is developed, including tasks that must be accomplished, target dates when they must be accomplished, and who is responsible for each task. All participants who are responsible for a task are highly engaged. The PI is highly engaged in prompting everyone to stay at least close to schedule.
• Regular, short meetings (at least weekly, generally for no more that 1 ½ hours each), are held in order to discuss decisions, review drafts and keep everyone on-task.  These meetings are kept focused as much as possible on project planning and proposal writing tasks. Early meetings focus on project planning and include all Center participants who wish to attend (participants from other institutions are included either through visits or via speaker-phone). As the focus moves to proposal writing, the meetings usually include mainly members of the proposal team who are responsible for putting together the proposal. However, all Center participants are kept informed via e-mail.
• The budget is developed early in the process but evolves as the proposal is written and project plans are changed.  This is a two-way process since there is rarely enough money to do everything that the Center team would like, so the budget affects the project plans, and vice versa. (Failure to keep updating the budget can result in a budget crisis near the deadline or in inconsistencies between the proposal narrative and the budget.)
• Time is allotted for many drafts of the proposal to be developed and reviewed. As the proposal text is put together, one person is designated to be the “keeper of the draft.” This person integrates everyone’s sections and brings together all edits and comments, and then redistributes them to team members for their further review. This avoids multiple drafts circulating.
• The PI is highly involved in writing the vision, project management and other integrative sections. The Center leadership team (PI, co-PIs, thrust leaders) are highly involved in reviewing and editing the proposal drafts (not just their own technical sections).
• As drafts are developed, all team members are given the opportunity to review the drafts and comment.  (Many who are not part of the Center leadership will not have a lot of comments, but they will feel more invested in the proposal and will be more likely to provide the information requested of them.)
• A close-to-final version of the proposal text is ready at least 1 week before the due date to allow for a “red team” review of the proposal by outside readers.
• The proposal is ready to upload and submit at least a day in advance, allowing plenty of time in case there are submission glitches.

2.0 Characteristics of Non-competitive Centers
• Submitted for the wrong reasons
• Focus is on the money – ideas are only ancillary
• Trying to force-fit discrete research within a center structure
• Hobbled by pre-existing research partnerships and dynamics (i.e., wrong team)
• PI’s lack of center development expertise
• PI’s technical skills are not complemented by leadership/management skills
 Unable to define an overarching vision for the center
 Unable to explain how the integration of research strands achieves a compelling vision and synergy that is not possible if these research strands were funded as individual, discrete projects
 Lacks integrative skills and program management experience required for a center’s multiple components
 Poor organization, scheduling, and communication skills
 Poorly managed proposal development process
 Lacks capacity for teaming
 Lacks perspective to appreciate the importance of all agency-required center components in addition to research cores
 Supplants the agency’s center concept with the PI’s center concept
• PI’s transition from a successful researcher to a successful center leader can be difficult
 Sees a center grant as just a big research proposal with more money
• Poorly planned, poorly developed, poorly scheduled, and poorly written
• Management of center development process is as complex as running the center itself, or more so because the core vision and ideas need to be developed and integrated
• Research team shortcomings
• Lack of prior collaborations among team members
• Lack of a competitive research track at the center level
• Lack of understanding of both the agency and the agency’s center goals
• Need to bring substantive expertise to each center goal, not just the research goal
• Centers need to be defined in a much larger research context than a research proposal
• Centers represent a complex configuration of multiple center elements surrounding a research core – synthesis and integration are key characteristics

3.0 Best Practices: Production Logistics

Communication
• Establish communication early – don't wait until last minute to gather your team and secure commitments for their participation. The PI, co-I, or co-PI should be responsible for extending initial invitations to other participants or those providing support of some kind (cooperative agreements, matching funds, mentors, access to facilities, etc.).
• Every team member should know what their roles are, what their writing responsibilities are, and what is expected from them once the grant is funded.
• A Center-level grant is typically not a single-PI effort; draft text from all the authors should be in good shape prior to the due date. A good strategy is to set a drop-dead date at least 5 days before the submission deadline, and frequently remind team members of that date.
• Communicate early in the writing process with the pre-award contact to reduce last-minute surprises (e.g., a limit on the number of Co-Is, specific budget requirements, etc.).
• Communicate decisions about style with the team and make sure every writer understands and conforms to that particular format. This is particularly important for consistency in citing references, using temporary figure/table numbers (since these will most likely be sequentially numbered when the whole document comes together), as well as use of fonts in tables or figures.

Document Preparation
• A template or structure-and-formatting guideline (document headings, subheadings, footers, etc.) should be provided to all authors so that each draft as well as the final compiled document are consistently written.
• Considering the inconsistencies and incompatibilities that are potentially introduced when using different platforms (Mac vs. PC) or software versions (Office 2003 vs. Office 2007), it is helpful to provide an MS Office template file (*.doc) to all authors with the Normal style set to the appropriate font, margins, and default line and paragraph spacing.
• Since Center-level grants typically have multiple sections written by multiple authors, it is advisable to have one person serving as the document master handler. This helps avoid the confusion of multiple versions with different layers of text additions or deletions. If the master handler needs help, then one other person can be brought in, but probably no more than that.
• The entire document has to be melded together so that formatting (headers, table and figure numbering, table of contents, references cited, etc.) and writing (terminology, acronyms, and general writing style) can be proofread and made as consistent as possible. Otherwise, the application will read as a hodgepodge of non-cohesive, separate documents, making the reviewer’s job tougher and implying lack of coordination and integration on the team’s part.
• Supplemental information should be gathered as early as possible (current and pending forms, equipment and/or resources lists, conflicts of interest, biosketches, letters of support, etc.).
• If you have special graphic needs, such as an organizational chart, get to work on it early. Print it in color and B/W to make sure your choices work in either format. Use subtle colors or lighter shades of gray. Bright colors can be distracting and render text hard to read, while colors that are too dark may be difficult to read if the printout is B/W.
• Charts or figures created in power point are typically formatted to fill most (or all) of an 8.5x11" page. What looks good in power point may not translate well to a proposal, especially with regard to font size.
• Figures with high resolution images or that are very large (i.e., lots of megabytes) can be extremely challenging when melding a huge document, emailing sections (or the whole document), converting to PDF, and during uploading. If flattening an image or reducing its resolution is beyond your ability, find someone who knows how. Print in color and B/W to make sure the image is still acceptable.