ESTABLISHING TIMELINES

AND OVERCOMING WRITING

OBSTACLES

NAOMI L. C. LUBAN, MD

Identify the grantor or funding agency

Talk to program officer / mentors / others funded by the agency

Make sure your idea is unique, not done before and “correct” for the grantor

Find and review a recent copy of a successful grant to use as a model (same kind/same agency)

Asks questions of the grantee and mentor

Getting Started

The only thing that stands between the proposal writer and the funding agency is the proposal itself.

Key Concept 1

Who is the real audience?

What do they want to know?

What do they NOT want to know?

Does the topic fit the mission of the grantor?

Considering the Audience

May differ for NIH vs. foundation grant

A great hypothesis / idea must be interesting

easy to read / understandable

clearly delineated / focused

“neatly” presented

statistically sound

testable

Key Concept 2

Make sure no one has done this before!

The abstract is the first and last thing read by

CSR – determines where reviewedReviewers – determine success vs.

failure

Make it the best it can possibly be Redo after completing the research design Overview / main points / importance Redo again after re-reading, editing

Key Concept 3

1. Read “background” material- has anyone else done this?

2. Make an outline – headers / subheaders help you organize

3. Write the first draft

4. Revise for substance- add tables / figures

5. Revise for clarity- flow of proposed work- feasibility

6. Seek criticism, critiques- use peers but also

- use someone who knows nothing about your work, but a lot about grant writing

Six Steps to Follow Once Hypotheses are Developed

Biostatistical assistance

Multiplicity of drafts

Time to prepare budget

Requirements from OSP?

Time for critiques

Months not weeks

Letters from consultant(s), collaborator(s), subcontractor(s)

May need to go through their OSP’s

Support letters

IRB issues

Calculating a Timeline for Preparation: Things to Consider

Set up a time table that works backwards from the due date with specific goals/

planned accomplishments

Post on mirror at home and by computer at work

Revise forward, never backward

It always takes longer than you think

Key Concept 4

Look for requirements that will take time to assemble

Make a list of exactly what you need

Call program officer if confused for clarification

Study the Sponsors Guidelines

Comprehensible to an informed layman

Place your problem in context by common knowledge

Show how your work will advance the field

May require importance to the public health

If complicated project, this section can specify order and arrangement of future sections

The Introduction: Capsule statement of what is being proposed. Tone-sober self confidence

Establish who you are

Identify how this project fits organizational directives

Lead logically to background

The Introduction or Specific Aims

Specific Aims Example

Be realistic in scale

Define phases, especially if some time will be spent developing an analytical method

Be explicit about assumptions or hypotheses

Consider posing the specific question(s) to be answered

The Background: Detailed explanation of proposed research. Tone-scientific,

technical and thorough

Example of Background

Example of Background

Be clear about schedule of work Develop a time line / calendar

Project problems with solutions

Be specific about data analysis

The Proposed Research II

Timeline Example

Study Design Example

Be certain that the research design/objectives and the research methods are evident

design or rationale - conceptualization of experiments (creativity)

methods – straightforward and detailed

analysis – convey data analysis and relationship to hypothesis

limitations and alternative plans

The Proposed Research III

Analysis Plan Example

Do not give up hope

Resubmissions are a way of life

Key Concept 5

EDITING TIPS

NAOMI L. C. LUBAN, MD

Warning Signals: Don’t Let This Be You

Problems identified The problem is not of sufficient importance or is unlikely to produce any new or useful information.

The proposed research is based on a hypothesis that rests on insufficient evidence, is doubtful, or is unsound.

The problem is more complex than the investigator appears to realize.

The problem has only local significance, or is one of production or control, or otherwise fails to fall sufficiently clearly within the general field of health-related research.

The problem is scientifically premature and warrants, at most, only a pilot study.

The research as proposed is overly involved, with too many elements under simultaneous investigation.

The description of the nature of the research and of its significance leaves the proposal nebulous and diffuse and without a clear research aim.

Approach The proposed tests, or methods, or scientific procedures are unsuited to the stated objective.

The description of the approach is too nebulous, diffuse, and lacking in clarity to permit adequate evaluation.

The overall design of the study has not been carefully thought out. The statistical aspects of the approach have not been given sufficient consideration.

The approach lacks scientific imagination.

Controls are either inadequately conceived or inadequately described.

The material the investigator proposes to use is unsuited to the objective of the study or is difficult to obtain.

The number of observations is unsuitable.

The equipment contemplated is outmoded or otherwise unsuitable.

Warning Signals: Don’t Let This Be You

Investigator The investigator does not have adequate experience or training for this

research.

The investigator appears to be unfamiliar with recent pertinent literature or methods.

The investigator's previously published work in this field does not inspire confidence.

The investigator proposes to rely too heavily on insufficiently experienced associates.

The investigator is spreading himself too thin; he will be more productive if he concentrates on fewer projects.

The investigator needs more liaison with colleagues in this field or in collateral fields.

Warning Signals: Don’t Let This Be You

Other The requirements for equipment or personnel are unrealistic.

It appears that other responsibilities would prevent devotion of sufficient time and attention to this research.

The institutional setting is unfavorable.

Research grants to the investigator, now in force, are adequate in scope and amount to cover the proposed research.

Warning Signals: Don’t Let This Be You

Maintain paragraph unit: topic sentence with 8 lines per paragraph

Use devices to indicate structure

headers / bullets / numbers

Use transition sentences between sections

Put in topic sentences that make sense

improves readability

Editing Tips:Organizing

Keep sentences short

Avoid vague modifiers

Eliminate unnecessary propositions

Provide graphics to clarify ideas

Editing Tips: Clarity I

Avoid jargon, clichés

Eliminate redundancy

Use active voice

Editing Tips: Clarity II

Connect ideas with transitional phrases

Accentuate “to illustrate…moreover… consequently…” the positive

Eliminate negative words / phrases

Show confidence (but not too much)

Editing Tips: Edit for Confidence

Subject-verb agreement

Pronoun agreement

Avoid split infinitives – double negatives

Use parallel construction

Editing Tips: Edit for Grammar I

What’s wrong with this slide?

Verb tense

Established knowledge – present

Current methods – past

Presentation – present

Attribution - past

Editing Tips: Edit for Grammar II

We will show… prior studies by one group demonstrated