To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Proposal writing for grants.
Journal articles on the topic 'Proposal writing for grants'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Proposal writing for grants.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Owoaje, Eme T. "Grant writing." Journal of Global Medicine 3, S1 (2023): e135. http://dx.doi.org/10.51496/jogm.v3.s1.135.
Full textAbstract:
Grant writing is the process of responding to an application for a financial grant from institutions such as research organisations, government agencies, corporations, foundations, trusts, and international funding organisations. The skills required to write successful grants are referred to as grantsmanship. Over the past few decades, the process of applying for grants has become increasingly complex and highly competitive. Therefore, the grant proposals must be based on innovative ideas, capable of advancing the current status of knowledge, compelling, and well-written. Types of Research Grants Collaborative research grants are usually interdisciplinary, multicentre, and multicountry. These are led by senior researchers with a team of co-investigators including post–doctoral fellows, and postgraduate students. Fellowships are individual research grants that provide the fellow who obtains the grant the time to focus on the research project for a stipulated time. Targeted grants are for early-career, mid-career, or senior researchers. The grant announcement for these indicates the category of researchers who are eligible to apply. Networking grants are aimed at developing teams and establishing teams of academic and research collaborators for a particular research topic. These grants provide funding for researchers to engage in discussions regarding potential research ideas. Small grants fund small research projects or preliminary research that provide initial data for larger research projects in the future. Travel grants are usually for professional development and are provided by disciplinary specialist organisations. The researcher is supported to travel to institutions that have resources or opportunities that are not available at their home institution. Knowledge transfer grants or industrial partnerships are grants aimed at promoting collaboration and knowledge exchange between academic and non-academic collaborators. The funds can also be used for proof of concept, pilots, and getting new products to the market. Conference grants are used to disseminate research findings or host research conferences. Grant proposals The proposals should conform to the guidelines indicated in the funding opportunity announcement. Funders have guidelines regarding the sections of the proposals, font type, and font sizes to be used, sections of the proposal, page limits for each section, and the overall proposal. Project narrative This section provides the most comprehensive description of the proposed project. The main areas are the background and literature review that identify research gaps. It contains the research problem and questions/aims and objectives and documents the proposed research methods. Other areas addressed are the project management and delivery plan, which may require work packages. The budget and budget justification are also addressed in this section. Other documents required are: The curriculum vitae of the investigators detailing their previous research and how it relates to the current application. Well-written letters of support from collaborators and collaborating institutions that address the roles and responsibilities of team members are essential. This is particularly important for collaborative research that involves various partners from other universities, non-academic organisations, and industry. These partners should provide signed letters of support that indicate the specific contribution of the collaborator and commitment research project, and the contribution in cash or in-kind.
2
Weber-Main, Anne Marie, Richard McGee, Kristin Eide Boman, et al. "Grant application outcomes for biomedical researchers who participated in the National Research Mentoring Network’s Grant Writing Coaching Programs." PLOS ONE 15, no. 11 (2020): e0241851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241851.
Full textAbstract:
Background A diverse research workforce is essential for catalyzing biomedical advancements, but this workforce goal is hindered by persistent sex and racial/ethnic disparities among investigators receiving research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In response, the NIH-funded National Research Mentoring Network implemented a Grant Writing Coaching Program (GCP) to provide diverse cohorts of early-career investigators across the United States with intensive coaching throughout the proposal development process. We evaluated the GCP’s national reach and short-term impact on participants’ proposal submissions and funding outcomes. Methods The GCP was delivered as six similar but distinct models. All models began with an in-person group session, followed by a series of coaching sessions over 4 to 12 months. Participants were surveyed at 6-, 12- and 18-months after program completion to assess proposal outcomes (submissions, awards). Self-reported data were verified and supplemented by searches of public repositories of awarded grants when available. Submission and award rates were derived from counts of participants who submitted or were awarded at least one grant proposal in a category (NIH, other federal, non-federal). Results From June 2015 through March 2019, 545 investigators (67% female, 61% under-represented racial/ethnic minority, URM) from 187 different institutions participated in the GCP. Among them, 324 (59% of participants) submitted at least one grant application and 134 (41% of submitters) received funding. A total of 164 grants were awarded, the majority being from the NIH (93, 56%). Of the 74 R01 (or similar) NIH research proposals submitted by GCP participants, 16 have been funded thus far (56% to URM, 75% to women). This 22% award rate exceeded the 2016–2018 NIH success rates for new R01s. Conclusion Inter- and intra-institutional grant writing coaching groups are a feasible and effective approach to supporting the grant acquisition efforts of early-career biomedical investigators, including women and those from URM groups.
3
Schweiger, Gerald. "Can’t We Do Better? A cost-benefit analysis of proposal writing in a competitive funding environment." PLOS ONE 18, no. 4 (2023): e0282320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282320.
Full textAbstract:
This article presents an analysis of third-party funding in Austria for energy research, including an analysis of the costs and benefits of writing proposals and of the trust proposal applicants place in the application process. For this purpose, applicants from research and industry applying for government-funded energy research grants in Austria were surveyed. Preparing a new proposal takes about 50 working days; at the current success rate, about 300 person-days are spent preparing proposals for a single proposal to be funded.More than 90% of researchers perceive that they currently spend too much time preparing proposals and only 10% of researchers believe that the current competitive third-party funding system has a positive effect on the quality of research. Furthermore, researchers have limited trust in the objectivity of proposal review processes.
4
Marchant, Mary A. "The Keys to Preparing Successful Research Grant Proposals." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33, no. 3 (2001): 605–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1074070800021040.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis article seeks to demystify the competitive grant recommendation process of scientific peer review panels. The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRICGP) administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Cooperative State Research, Extension, and Education Service (USDA-CSREES) serves as the focus of this article. This article provides a brief background on the NRICGP and discusses the application process, the scientific peer review process, guidelines for grant writing, and ways to interpret reviewer comments if a proposal is not funded. The essentials of good grant writing discussed in this article are transferable to other USDA competitive grant programs.
5
Mirando, Mark A., and Adele M. Turzillo. "Funding opportunities at the National Institute of Food and Agriculture: program priorities and tips for successful grant writing." Clinical Theriogenology 10, no. 4 (2018): 469–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.58292/ct.v10.9905.
Full textAbstract:
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture is the agency within the United States Department of Agriculture that provides extramural funding for competitive grants in research, education and extension. Several grant programs exist in this agency that support both basic and applied research in bovine reproduction, the most notable of which is the animal reproduction program area priority within the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. Other programs within this initiative, while not dedicated solely to work in reproductive biology, also include opportunities for work on reproduction. The animal health and disease program area of this initiative provides funding for research on infectious diseases of the reproductive tract. The critical agriculture research and extension and the exploratory research program area priorities are two unique opportunities that offer funding for work in all areas in the food and agricultural sciences, including reproduction in cattle. Opportunities for education support at the agency include the predoctoral fellowships, postdoctoral fellowships, and research and extension experiences for undergraduates program, as well as the National Needs Graduate and Postgraduate Fellowship Grants, Higher Education Challenge Grants and Higher Education Multicultural Scholars programs. To stimulate technological innovations in the private sector, Small Business Innovation Research program competitively awards grants to qualified small businesses to address important problems in agriculture. To address veterinary shortage situations, especially those in food animal medicine, the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment program helps qualified veterinarians offset a significant portion of debt incurred in pursuit of their veterinary degrees in return for service in designated high-priority veterinary shortage areas. The Veterinary Services Grant program provides funding for education, extension, and training in veterinary medicine of agricultural animals, as well as grants to enhance rural veterinary practices. Most federal grant programs are highly competitive, so skill and experience in applying for grants is needed to achieve success in securing grant funding. Recommendations for preparation of a meritorious grant proposal include careful reading of the program announcement, solicitation or request for applications to fully understand the scope, eligibility and requirements of the program; writing the grant proposal well in advance of the submission deadline to allow time for thoughtful preparation, critique by an experienced colleague, revision, and proof reading; and understanding the review process and criteria by which the proposal will be evaluated.
6
Alenkina, T. B. "The Genre of a Grant Proposal in the Modern Teaching Context: Challenges and Possibilities." Vysshee Obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia 32, no. 6 (2023): 76–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2023-32-6-76-92.
Full textAbstract:
Nowadays attaining a grant is a criterion of success for an early-career researcher and an important indicator of effective work of a university as a research-based and corporate institution. During its thirty-year history in Russia, grants have become a traditional and even routine practice for every Russian PhD student and an early-career researcher. Like their international colleagues, Russian researchers often don’t get sufficient support from their scientific advisor and an academic writing expert. A few attempts to improve current situation have been made in a number of research universities. One of such cases is a course “Grant Writing” that has been recently implemented in the English-language writing-intensive program of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. The complex aim or the paper can be explained by the multidimensional nature of a grant. After characterizing a grant proposal as an up-to-date text genre in the international and interdisciplinary context in the framework of Genre Field Analysis, we consider the full process of applying for a grant in real-life environment and classroom settings. Finally, in the lens of Critical Genre Analysis, the qualitative analysis of the introductory sections of Russian grant proposals is conducted. The modern genre theory gives the basis for using a combination of methods in our research. In the lens of Genre Field Analysis, the sociopragmatic approach to the grant proposal provides an opportunity to get acquainted with the modern practices of applying for a grant, while Critical Genre Analysis may contribute to the deeper understanding of the text production mechanisms. The synthesis of theory and practice and its role could be seen in the qualitative analysis of grant proposals written by PhD students, attendees of the course “Grant Writing” at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. The findings give evidence for insufficient disciplinary expertise and substitution of one genre – a grant proposal – by another one, more familiar for Russian students, – a research paper and an abstract. The obtained results testify in favor of the implementation of the course “Grant Writing” as well as other genre-based courses deeply rooted in the cross-disciplinary context and aimed at developing the researcher competence.
7
Idika Delight Omoji, Gabriel Femi Goodwill, Okeke Mabel Obioma, et al. "Assessment of lecturer’s access to research grants in Nigerian universities: Impact on knowledge creation and dissemination." World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews 19, no. 1 (2023): 1289–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.19.1.1463.
Full textAbstract:
This study evaluated lecturers’ access to research grants in Nigerian Universities and its impact on knowledge creation and dissemination. Descriptive survey design was adopted by the researchers. A sample of 630 senior lecturers constituting 13% of a population of 5,218 senior lecturers in three universities in their study area participated in the study. The respondents were drawn through purposive sampling techniques. The study was based on four research questions. Data for the study was gathered through a 22-item questionnaire. The instrument was validated and tested for reliability using Cronbach Alpha with a reliability index of 0.87. Data collected were analyzed using means, standard deviation and a nonparametric measure of rank correlation. Results indicated that academic research are self-funded or basically self-motivated adventures by lecturers in Nigeria, other sources of research funding are governmental intervention agencies, foreign donor’s non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and professional associations. It was revealed that 88.77% of the population admitted that they had never conducted a study funded via research grant in their host institutions. It was found that lecturer faces challenges in accessing research due to poor research grant writing skills, inability to develop and justify fundable budgets, lack of information on research grants, politicization of proposal reviewer team for approval, inability to meet the time frame for fulfilling the requirements for research grants, difficulty in the retirement process for research grant, inability to meet eligibility criteria, lack of interest in writing for a research grant and inability to write acceptable proposals, and stringent conditions attached to research grants. It was also found that inability to access grants dampen lecturers motivation for knowledge creation and dissemination leading to lower standard of education and poor innovation. The study concludes and recommends that management of Nigerian universities and relevant stakeholders should provide enabling environment and accessible funding opportunities for lecturers by aptly identifying and disseminating information for accessing research grants.
8
Shahbazian-Yassar, Reza. "Equipment Funding Opportunities and Strategies for Success (Part 2)." Microscopy Today 20, no. 5 (2012): 60–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1551929512000727.
Full textAbstract:
My name is Reza Shabhazian-Yassar, and I am currently an assistant professor at the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Michigan Tech. I am a junior faculty member and have gained some experience with MRI NSF proposals. Fortunately, I have been funded in one of these grants, and also I have served as the reviewer in MRI panels. When Debby was talking about the reviewers' comments for the previous proposal, fortunately, I was not among those who provided those kinds of comments. I am going to share a little of my experience. I see a number of young faces and newer junior faculty who may benefit from what I am about to say. When I started at Michigan Tech, I didn't have much experience with proposal writing, so it was very difficult for me to figure out what sort of discussions I should include in my proposal. I read the solicitation and program description, but some of the details you gain by actually writing the proposal. It's something like writing a paper, you just need to practice writing, and you will be good at it. Please note that following my recommendations does not mean that 100 percent of you are going to get funded (I am not a Superman!). Rather, I intend to help you write a more efficient proposal. What I report complements Debby's point of view. Debby mentioned a general overview of the review process. Here, I will give you steps on how proposals are reviewed and how to write a more competitive proposal. Since I will talk about NSF, I will cover the MRI goals. In NIH or other agencies, there may be different goals.
9
Mitchell, N. "Writing a grant proposal." Veterinary Record 169, no. 3 (2011): ii. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.g7150.
Full text
10
Bliss, Donna Zimmaro. "Writing a Grant Proposal." Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing 32, no. 6 (2005): 365–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00152192-200511000-00006.
Full text
11
SCHMELZER, MARILEE. "Writing a Grant Proposal." Gastroenterology Nursing 18, no. 3 (1995): 104–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001610-199505000-00006.
Full text
12
Namachchivaya, Beth Sandore, and Jamie McGowan. "Assessing the Library's Grants Program." Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 10, no. 2 (2015): 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/b81w2s.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract
 
 Objective – The authors analyzed seven years of sponsored research projects at the University of Illinois Library at Urbana–Champaign with the aim of understanding the research trends and themes over that period. The analysis was aimed at identifying areas of future research potential and corresponding support opportunities. Goals included developing institutional research themes that intersect with funding priorities, demystifying grant writing and project management through professional development programs, increasing communication about grant successes; and bringing new faculty and academic staff into these processes. The review and analysis has proven valuable for the Library’s institutional practices, and this assessment may also inform other institutions’ initiatives with grant-writing.
 
 Methods – The authors performed a combination of quantitative and qualitative analyses of the University Library’s grant activities that enabled us to accomplish several goals: 1) establish a baseline of data on funded grants; 2) identify motivations for pursuing grants and the obstacles that library professionals face in the process; 3) establish a stronger support structure based on feedback gathered, and through collaborations with other groups that support the research process; and 4) identify strategic research themes that leverage local strengths and address institutional priorities.
 
 Conclusions – Analysis of Library data on externally funded grants from the University’s Proposal Data System provided insight into the trends, themes, and outliers. Informal interviews were carried out with investigators to identify areas where the Library could more effectively support those who were pursuing and administering grants in support of research. The assessment revealed the need for the Library to support grant efforts as an integral component of the research process
13
Decoteau, Dennis R. "Writing in Horticulture: A Course to Help Graduate Students Write More Effectively." HortTechnology 7, no. 1 (1997): 81–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.21273/horttech.7.1.81.
Full textAbstract:
A one-credit course, Writing in Horticulture, was developed and taught to graduate students in the Dept. of Horticulture at Clemson Univ. The course focused on discussion and explanation of the philosophies and methods of writing in the horticulture field. Discussions included a review of writing mechanics, types of writing and audiences, examples of exemplary writings, editing and reviewing, and examples and methods of professional correspondence. Real-life writing experiences were emphasized. Hands-on activities included writing and reviewing peer manuscripts and grant proposals. Three original written works were completed by the end of the semester: 1) a popular press article, 2) a grant proposal (maximum three pages long), and 3) an abstract for a manuscript published previously in a scientific journal.
14
Sathian, Brijesh, Edwin Van Teijlingen, Indrajit Banerjee, and Russell Kabir. "Guidance to applying for health research grants in the UK." Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 12, no. 4 (2022): 1231–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/nje.v12i4.50998.
Full textAbstract:
Applying for a research grant is one of the skills new researchers need to learn. Writing a grant application can be an intimidating process. Most research funders have either an online application system or a standard application form that can be emailed to the funder. Although the length and layout of a grant application can vary between funding bodies, most ask for similar details, including a research proposal, the nature of the research team, a budget, a timeline, and often a risk assessment. This paper summarises key funding agencies in the health research field. Furthermore, it briefly outlines the general process of applying for grants related to health and health services research in the UK. To highlight some of the issues that can occur in the grant application process, we provide two examples of applications for international research grants from UK-based funding bodies, each had to be resubmitted before of it was successful in receiving funding.
15
Glynn, Lindsay. "Professional Grant Proposal Writing Workshop." Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 3, no. 2 (2008): 76. http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/b8c33b.
Full text
16
Moran, Irene E. "WRITING A WINNING GRANT PROPOSAL." Bottom Line 1, no. 2 (1988): 13–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb025109.
Full text
17
Gomez-Cambronero, Julian, Lee-Ann H. Allen, Martha K. Cathcart, et al. "Writing a first grant proposal." Nature Immunology 13, no. 2 (2012): 105–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ni.2183.
Full text
18
Ishaq, B. Mahammad, and C. Hari Kumar. "Crafting a Convincing Research Proposal: A Guide to Writing Successful Funding Applications." Journal of Pharmaceutical Research 23, no. 1 (2023): 8–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.18579/jopcr/v22.1.22.ms230301.
Full textAbstract:
Writing a research proposal for funding is a crucial skill for researchers seeking to secure financial support for their projects. A well-drafted proposal can convince funding agencies about scientific, commercial and social impact of the research project and also researcher's competence and skill. However, crafting a persuasive proposal is always challenging, and many researchers struggle with where to start and how to structure the proposal. This manuscript aims to provide a comprehensive guide for writing a research project proposal for funding. It discusses the key elements involved in the research process and outlines the essential components of a persuasive research proposal. It provides a helpful guidance on how to hone in on a research question, pinpoint a knowledge gap, and define specific goals for the study. It also explores different research methodologies and provides guidance on how to select the most appropriate approach for a given research project. It further provides tips on how to structure the proposal effectively, including the use of clear and concise language, and the inclusion of relevant and compelling supporting evidence. In conclusion, it will serve as a thorough and practical resource for anyone looking to secure financial backing for their next research endeavor. Our endeavor is to provide invaluable tool for scientists who are applying for grants or seeking funding for their research endeavors. Keywords: Research proposal, Well-crafted proposal, Manuscript, Writing, Comprehensive guide
19
Dable-Tupas, Genevieve, Victoria Toralba-Lupase, Juan C. Puyana, and Mihnea-Alexandru Găman. "Research Grant Proposal Writing Course for Students in Higher Institutions." International Journal of Medical Students 10, no. 3 (2022): 226–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/ijms.2022.1671.
Full textAbstract:
Research grant proposals have become part of the everyday life of every scientist working in the field of life sciences. Although most early career researchers begin working on research grant proposals during their doctorate, laying the foundation of this complicated task should occur during their undergraduate training. This chapter serves as an introduction into research grant proposal writing for students enrolled in higher education and tackles subjects such as choosing a research topic and writing a successful grant application, as well as possible challenges, funding opportunities and further readings we considered appropriate for students and early career researchers.
20
Ianni, Phillip, Elias Samuels, Ellen Champagne, Brenda Eakin, and Christy Byks-Jazayeri. "94 Evaluation of a grant writing workshop designed to increase submission and award rates for career development awards." Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 7, s1 (2023): 26–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2023.177.
Full textAbstract:
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To improve early career faculty members’ NIH grant writing skills, Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) hubs have developed a variety of workshop-style programs. However, few articles have evaluated the impact of grant writing workshops on NIH grant submission and award rates. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The K Writing program was developed by the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR) at the University of Michigan. Since 2012, 435 scholars have participated in the program. The MICHR K Writing program is a three-part workshop series that prepares scholars by providing them with guidelines to write all sections of a career development grant application. Each session focuses on different sections of the K award proposal. During the workshop sessions, participants break into small groups and exchange drafts of their proposal sections and receive peer critique and feedback from senior faculty facilitators who have experience with NIH study sections. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Between 2012-2018, 273 scholars participated and 57% were female. Our two primary outcomes of interest are submission rates and success rates (the number of grants awarded divided by the number of applications). We plan to examine the effects of several characteristics, including number of sessions attended, cohort year, and faculty vs. postdoctoral status. We will also examine whether there were differences in submission and success rates between female and male researchers and between underrepresented minority scholars and those who identified as white or Asian. Lastly, we will report submission and success rates for each grant mechanism and compare them to the national averages. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Obtaining external research funding is an important part of a faculty career, especially at its early stages. This research has important implications for the design of similar programs intended to increase submission and success rates for federal grant applications.
21
Engberg, Sandra, and Donna Z. Bliss. "Writing a Grant Proposal—Part 1." Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing 32, no. 3 (2005): 157–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00152192-200505000-00003.
Full text
22
Bliss, Donna Z., and Kay Savik. "Writing a Grant Proposal—Part 2." Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing 32, no. 4 (2005): 226–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00152192-200507000-00006.
Full text
23
Boyle, Elaine M. "Writing a good research grant proposal." Paediatrics and Child Health 30, no. 2 (2020): 52–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paed.2019.11.003.
Full text
24
Gomez-Cambronero, Julian, Lee-Ann H. Allen, Martha K. Cathcart, et al. "Erratum: Writing a first grant proposal." Nature Immunology 13, no. 6 (2012): 621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ni0612-621b.
Full text
25
Botham, Crystal M., Shay Brawn, Latishya Steele, Cisco B. Barrón, Sofie R. Kleppner, and Daniel Herschlag. "Biosciences Proposal Bootcamp: Structured peer and faculty feedback improves trainees’ proposals and grantsmanship self-efficacy." PLOS ONE 15, no. 12 (2020): e0243973. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243973.
Full textAbstract:
Grant writing is an essential skill to develop for academic and other career success but providing individual feedback to large numbers of trainees is challenging. In 2014, we launched the Stanford Biosciences Grant Writing Academy to support graduate students and postdocs in writing research proposals. Its core program is a multi-week Proposal Bootcamp designed to increase the feedback writers receive as they develop and refine their proposals. The Proposal Bootcamp consisted of two-hour weekly meetings that included mini lectures and peer review. Bootcamp participants also attended faculty review workshops to obtain faculty feedback. Postdoctoral trainees were trained and hired as course teaching assistants and facilitated weekly meetings and review workshops. Over the last six years, the annual Bootcamp has provided 525 doctoral students and postdocs with multi-level feedback (peer and faculty). Proposals from Bootcamp participants were almost twice as likely to be funded than proposals from non-Bootcamp trainees. Overall, this structured program provided opportunities for feedback from multiple peer and faculty reviewers, increased the participants’ confidence in developing and submitting research proposals, while accommodating a large number of participants.
26
Windsor, Leah C., and Christian Kronsted. "Grant Writing and the Hidden Curriculum: Mentoring and Collaborating Across Disciplines." PS: Political Science & Politics 55, no. 2 (2022): 313–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1049096521001827.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACTSubmitting grant proposals is becoming an increasingly common expectation—and, in some cases, a requirement—in the discipline of political science as well as other social sciences and the humanities. However, writing a grant with a good chance of success at getting funded is not part of standard mentorship or pedagogy in our discipline. It is a part of the hidden curriculum, where grant-writing skills often are taught informally in working with a principal investigator. This article describes the process and structure of writing a grant to provide a roadmap for scholars to follow in submitting externally funded projects. The article describes an Institutional Review Board–approved survey about mentorship and grant writing and discusses the importance of socialization, professionalization, and administration in supporting scholars in writing and obtaining grants.
27
Kalu,, Okey U., Richard C. Udeala, and Augustina U. Nwobi. "Proposal-Grant Writing Skills, A Veritable Tool for Academic Success of Graduate Students." European Journal of Training and Development Studies 10, no. 2 (2023): 33–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.37745/ejtds.2014/vol10n23343.
Full textAbstract:
The study focused on proposal grant writing as a veritable tool academic success of postgraduate students in universities. Two research questions were answered and two hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance. Descriptive survey design was adopted for the study. The population for the study was 65 senior faculty members of the department of English & Literary studies, University of Nigeria Nsukka (UNN) and Enugu State University of Science & Technology (ESUT). Instrument for data collection was a structured questionnaire. Two experts validated the instrument for data collection. The internal consistency of the instrument was determined by the use of Cronbach alpha reliability method and 0.76 reliability coefficient was obtained. The data generated were analyzed using mean to answer research questions while t-test was used to test the hypotheses. The findings of the study revealed that good knowledge of proposal grant writing skills such as research skills, writing skills and analytical skills is a prerequisite for a successful postgraduate studies in universities. Acquisition of good writing skills enhances chances of research funding, increases scholar’s visibility, creates collaborative research networks and fosters employment opportunities in industries and academic institutions for graduate students. It was recommended that Postgraduate studies management should regularly conduct training sessions, workshops, and seminars on proposal grant writing for graduate students. These sessions would provide valuable insights, practical tips, and guidance from experienced professionals. It was also recommended that graduate students should learn the culture of sharing their proposals for grant funding with mentors, or professionals experienced in grant writing. Soliciting their feedbacks and suggestions for improvement would enhance the quality of the proposal.
28
Veevers, Jennifer, Patrick H. Ryan, Jacqueline M. Knapke, et al. "99 Grant Writing Program to Enhance Junior Faculty Research Funding Success." Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 7, s1 (2023): 28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2023.182.
Full textAbstract:
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The grant writing process provides investigators with critical thinking, problem solving, and communication skills, crucial for personal and professional development. However, opportunities for junior faculty to learn these skills are highly variable. Thus, we developed a grant writing program to assist in the preparation of an NIH R proposal. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The R Club Grant Program was implemented in 2021 for junior faculty of the University of Cincinnati’s College of Medicine and Center for Clinical & Translational Science & Training (CCTST). The program consists of a series of workshops (e.g., How to Craft a Specific Aims Page, How to Construct a Competitive R01 Proposal) utilizing examples of successful proposals and grant review criteria to demonstrate how to translate a conceptual framework into a research proposal (level 1). All participants can receive constructive feedback on a Specific Aims page from an experienced grant writer (level 2), and for a select cohort, the program provides comprehensive scientific content edits and iterative feedback on a full research proposal, with a focus on grantsmanship, presentation, and overall competitiveness (level 3). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Over three NIH grant cycles, the program to date has provided 38 early-career investigators with multi-level grant writing support. All participants attended the workshops and received supporting documents, 21 received feedback on a Specific Aims page, and 6 received one-on-one writing assistance on their full research proposal. Of the 6 investigators who received the greatest level of support, 3 have received NIH scientific review, with a 66.6% funding success rate for either an original (R01, n=1) or subsequent overlapping (R35, n=1) proposal. In a survey sent to workshop attendees, 100% of respondents (n=23) reported ( Strongly Agreed or Agreed ) that the training was a worthwhile investment in their professional development and 96% stated that they will be able to apply the knowledge and skills learned. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Initial evaluation measures suggest that grant writing support programs have great potential to enhance funding success rates. As the program evolves it will be crucial to evaluate both qualitative and quantitative feedback measures to ensure efforts are directed to the appropriate level(s) of service to maximize the funding success of our faculty.
29
Seeman, E. "The ABC of writing a grant proposal." Osteoporosis International 26, no. 6 (2015): 1665–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3085-2.
Full text
30
Parker, Jennifer S., and Laura Bauknight. "Positive Youth Development through Civic Engagement." Journal of Youth Development 4, no. 3 (2009): 100–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2009.255.
Full textAbstract:
As part of the 175th anniversary celebration of Spartanburg, South Carolina, three local foundations and the United Way agreed to fund a youth leadership project. A University of South Carolina Upstate (USC Upstate) faculty member with expertise in youth development and the coordinator of the Spartanburg Youth Council agreed to develop the project and serve as the project directors. We developed a youth philanthropy project with expected outcomes of positive development, increased awareness of community issues, and greater civic engagement for the youth. A group of eighteen teens participated in the yearlong project. Interactive workshops on topics such as community goals, grant writing, writing the request for proposals and reviewing grants were conducted. At the culmination of the project, the young philanthropists awarded grants totaling $12,000 to eight youth serving organizations. The teens reported many positive developmental experiences and greater awareness of community needs and increased responsibility to their community.
31
Chung, Kevin C., and Melissa J. Shauver. "Fundamental Principles of Writing a Successful Grant Proposal." Journal of Hand Surgery 33, no. 4 (2008): 566–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2007.11.028.
Full text
32
Lisanti, Phyllis, and Dorothy Talotta. "Tips for Writing a NAON Research Grant Proposal." Orthopaedic Nursing 19, no. 2 (2000): 61–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006416-200019020-00009.
Full text
33
Schroeder, Thomas. "Useful Tips for Writing a Winning Grant Proposal." Successful Fundraising 27, no. 1 (2018): 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sfr.31078.
Full text
34
Marshall, Lois S. "Research Commentary: Grant Writing: Part II Grant Application/Proposal Components." Journal of Radiology Nursing 32, no. 1 (2013): 48–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jradnu.2013.01.002.
Full text
35
Streiner, David L. "“While You're Up, Get Me a Grant”: A Guide to Grant Writing." Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 41, no. 3 (1996): 137–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/070674379604100302.
Full textAbstract:
Over the past few years, the number of well-trained researchers has increased, but the amount of money available for research has remained the same or even decreased. Consequently, competition for support is keener than it ever was. How a grant is written may tip the balance between getting funded or not. This article provides some guidelines for writing better proposals, touching on the various parts of the protocol and how it should be packaged. It addresses both the overt purpose of the proposal, which is telling the reviewers what you want to do, why, and how; and the covert message, which is convincing them that you have the ability to do what you propose. The article also discusses the review mechanism, who it is who reads the grant, and why this matters.
36
Dumanis, Sonya B., Lauren Ullrich, Patricia M. Washington, and Patrick A. Forcelli. "It's Money! Real-World Grant Experience through a Student-Run, Peer-Reviewed Program." CBE—Life Sciences Education 12, no. 3 (2013): 419–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-05-0058.
Full textAbstract:
Grantsmanship is an integral component of surviving and thriving in academic science, especially in the current funding climate. Therefore, any additional opportunities to write, read, and review grants during graduate school may have lasting benefits on one's career. We present here our experience with a small, student-run grant program at Georgetown University Medical Center. Founded in 2010, this program has several goals: 1) to give graduate students an opportunity to conduct small, independent research projects; 2) to encourage graduate students to write grants early and often; and 3) to give graduate students an opportunity to review grants. In the 3 yr since the program's start, 28 applications have been submitted, 13 of which were funded for a total of $40,000. From funded grants, students have produced abstracts and manuscripts, generated data to support subsequent grant proposals, and made new professional contacts with collaborators. Above and beyond financial support, this program provided both applicants and reviewers an opportunity to improve their writing skills, professional development, and understanding of the grants process, as reflected in the outcome measures presented. With a small commitment of time and funding, other institutions could implement a program like this to the benefit of their graduate students.
37
Graham, Chris L. B., Thomas E. Landrain, Amber Vjestica, et al. "Community review: a robust and scalable selection system for resource allocation within open science and innovation communities." F1000Research 11 (December 6, 2022): 1440. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125886.1.
Full textAbstract:
Resource allocation is essential to selection and implementation of innovative projects in science and technology. Current “winner-take-all” models for grant applications require significant researcher time in writing extensive project proposals, and rely on the availability of a few time-saturated volunteer experts. Such processes usually carry over several months, resulting in high effective costs compared to expected benefits. We devised an agile “community review” system to allocate micro-grants for the fast prototyping of innovative solutions. Here we describe and evaluate the implementation of this community review across 147 projects from the “Just One Giant Lab’s OpenCOVID19 initiative” and “Helpful Engineering” open research communities. The community review process uses granular review forms and requires the participation of grant applicants in the review process. Within a year, we organised 7 rounds of review, resulting in 614 reviews from 201 reviewers, and the attribution of 48 micro-grants of up to 4,000 euros. The system is fast, with a median process duration of 10 days, scalable, with a median of 4 reviewers per project independent of the total number of projects, and fair, with project rankings highly preserved after the synthetic removal of reviewers. Regarding potential bias introduced by involving applicants in the process, we find that review scores from both applicants and non-applicants have a similar correlation of r=0.28 with other reviews within a project, matching traditional approaches. Finally, we find that the ability of projects to apply to several rounds allows to foster the further implementation of successful early prototypes, as well as provide a pathway to constructively improve an initially failing proposal in an agile manner. Overall, this study quantitatively highlights the benefits of a frugal, community review system acting as a due diligence for rapid and agile resource allocation in open research and innovation programs, with implications for decentralised communities.
38
Holland, Christy K. "How to write a peer-polished proposal in 15 weeks." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 155, no. 3_Supplement (2024): A104—A105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/10.0026964.
Full textAbstract:
Creating a meticulously crafted proposal requires a strategic approach and systematic planning. An overview of a semester-long graduate course on how to write successful NIH grant applications will be provided. Particular emphasis is given to developing proposals for the Ruth L. Kirschstein Predoctoral Individual National Research Service Award (https://researchtraining.nih.gov/programs/fellowships/F31) or to disease-based foundations. The writing process involves drafting components in several key phases. The initial four weeks focus on understanding the proposal requirements, identifying the target audience, organizing a brilliant biosketch and remarkable resources and environment pages, and establishing a clear hypothesis and specific aims. An extensive literature review is conducted in the subsequent two weeks to contextualize the proposal, identify a gap in knowledge, and stress the significance and innovation of the proposed work. Weeks 7 and 8 are devoted to the development of a robust research approach and methodology, including data collection, analysis techniques, expected outcomes, potential challenges, and alternative approaches. The review process, refinement and enhancement take center stage for the remaining weeks. Peer review and feedback mechanisms are incorporated to iteratively improve each proposal's coherence, logic, and persuasiveness. This systematic 15-week timeline emphasizes iterative refinement through peer input, ensuring a polished proposal ready for submission.
39
Hallahan, Daniel P. "Grant Proposal Writing for Junior Faculty in Special Education." Remedial and Special Education 14, no. 3 (1993): 21–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074193259301400305.
Full text
40
Sayer, Betty. "Writing Organization and Funder Profiles for a Grant Proposal." Nurse Author & Editor 9, no. 2 (1999): 7–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4910.1999.tb00420.x.
Full text
41
Fazel, Ismaeil, and Ling Shi. "Citation behaviors of graduate students in grant proposal writing." Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (December 2015): 203–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.10.002.
Full text
42
Hiatt, Robert A., Yazmin P. Carrasco, Alan L. Paciorek, et al. "Enhancing grant-writing expertise in BUILD institutions: Building infrastructure leading to diversity." PLOS ONE 17, no. 9 (2022): e0274100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274100.
Full textAbstract:
Background The lack of race/ethnic and gender diversity in grants funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a persistent challenge related to career advancement and the quality and relevance of health research. We describe pilot programs at nine institutions supported by the NIH-sponsored Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) program aimed at increasing diversity in biomedical research. Methods We collected data from the 2016–2017 Higher Education Research Institute survey of faculty and NIH progress reports for the first four years of the program (2015–2018). We then conducted descriptive analyses of data from the nine BUILD institutions that had collected data and evaluated which activities were associated with research productivity. We used Poisson regression and rate ratios of the numbers of BUILD pilots funded, students included, abstracts, presentations, publications, and submitted and funded grant proposals. Results Teaching workshops were associated with more abstracts (RR 4.04, 95% CI 2.21–8.09). Workshops on grant writing were associated with more publications (RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.64–4.34) and marginally with marginally more presentations. Incentives to develop courses were associated with more abstracts published (RR 4.33, 95% CI 2.56–7.75). Workshops on research skills and other incentives were not associated with any positive effects. Conclusions Pilot interventions show promise in supporting diversity in NIH-level research. Longitudinal modeling that considers time lags in career development in moving from project development to grants submissions can provide more direction for future diversity pilot interventions.
43
McCarthy, Christine. ""And ... the dazzle continued inside ...": New Zealand interior and landscape architectures of the 1930s." Architectural History Aotearoa 18 (December 8, 2021): 1–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.26686/aha.v18i.7359.
Full textAbstract:
The Depression began in the late 1920s, but was not simply triggered by the October 1929 crash in Wall Street. In the two years between 1928-29 and 1930-31, "export income nearly halved. ... The government ... slashed expenditure," including severe cuts to public spending in health and education. As Ann Calhoun notes:[t]he effect of the 1930s Depression on [Schools of Art] students and instructors alike was massive: salaries were reduced, the school admission age was raised, overscale salaries were limited, grants for sewing and science were withdrawn, administration grants were cut back, training colleges in Wellington and Dunedin closed and student allowances decreased, and grants to kindergartens were withdrawn.A proposal for a town-planning course by John Mawson (the Director of Town Planning)) and Cyril Knight (Head of Architecture, Auckland University College) likewise failed due to "lack of numbers and Depression cutbacks." Helen Leach also notes the impact of cuts to education more generally, writing that: "[m]others of young children who expected them to start school at four or five learned in May 1932 that the age of entry would be raised to six."
44
Kaguhangire-Barifaijo, Maria, James L. Nkata, Rose Namara, and Robert Agwot Komakech. "Accountability Mechanism and Academics’ Research Output: Lessons for Uganda Management Institute (UMI)." World Journal of Educational Research 10, no. 1 (2023): p29. http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/wjer.v10n1p29.
Full textAbstract:
The paper examined institutional research practices that promote academics’ motivation to engage in writing and publication. The idea was prompted by enormous effort and financial support UMI has committed on various research and publication-related programs and activities, including; annual research cluster grants, conference funding, graduate supervision, and guest scholars that are periodically engaged to facilitate in the areas of; research, supervision, scholarly writing, publication, grant proposal writing, etc. Every year (save for the pandemic period), the institute disburses funds to academics that respond to research grant calls in a timely fashion. Similarly, there were newly graduate doctoral candidates, still with fresh and novel publishable research ideas. It was revealed that academics are recognized for graduate supervision to completion, instead of co-publication efforts. The paper concludes that the lack of “price-tags” for research uptake, and the current accounting system that focuses on the usage of funds, instead of the outcomes has continued to diminish academics motivation to publish. Similarly, the practice to settle for the “raw research reports” instead of publications as a way of accountability had affected academics’ desire to publish. Further, collegial cooperation had affected implementation of personnel decisions related to research. Lastly, the delayed performance feedback on individual publication statuses affected their publication acumen. The paper recommends that institutions need to devise accountability systems for funded research activities as a way of sustaining academics’ research passion and motivation. Similarly, the institution should use the detailed “quarterly performance output reports” to regularly update members on their research uptake situation, other than waiting for the expiry of the five-year employment contract.
45
Stein, L. A. R., M. Clair, R. Lebeau, J. O. Prochaska, J. S. Rossi, and J. Swift. "Facilitating Grant Proposal Writing in Health Behaviors for University Faculty." Health Promotion Practice 13, no. 1 (2011): 71–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524839910385895.
Full text
46
Strekalova, Yulia A. Levites, Diana L. Kornetti, Ruixuan Wang, et al. "Individual and Institutional Factors Contribute to Research Capacity Building for Early-Stage Investigators from Groups Underrepresented in Biomedical Research: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 9 (2023): 5662. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20095662.
Full textAbstract:
Background: Enhancement of diversity within the U.S. research workforce is a recognized need and priority at a national level. Existing comprehensive programs, such as the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) and Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI), have the dual focus of building institutional research capacity and promoting investigator self-efficacy through mentoring and training. Methods: A qualitative comparative analysis was used to identify the combination of factors that explain the success and failure to submit a grant proposal by investigators underrepresented in biomedical research from the RCMI and non-RCMI institutions. The records of 211 participants enrolled in the NRMN Strategic Empowerment Tailored for Health Equity Investigators (NRMN-SETH) program were reviewed, and data for 79 early-stage, underrepresented faculty investigators from RCMI (n = 23) and non-RCMI (n = 56) institutions were included. Results: Institutional membership (RCMI vs. non-RCMI) was used as a possible predictive factor and emerged as a contributing factor for all of the analyses. Access to local mentors was predictive of a successful grant submission for RCMI investigators, while underrepresented investigators at non-RCMI institutions who succeeded with submitting grants still lacked access to local mentors. Conclusion: Institutional contexts contribute to the grant writing experiences of investigators underrepresented in biomedical research.
47
Santen, Richard J., Eugene J. Barrett, Helmy M. Siragy, Leon S. Farhi, Lauren Fishbein, and Robert M. Carey. "The Jewel in the Crown: Specific Aims Section of Investigator-Initiated Grant Proposals." Journal of the Endocrine Society 1, no. 9 (2017): 1194–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1210/js.2017-00318.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The specific aims section of National Institutes of Health and other grants is the most important component, as it summarizes the scientific premise, gap in current knowledge, hypotheses, methods, and expected results of the project proposed. The reviewer usually reads this section first and forms an immediate opinion, usually confirmed on reading the entire grant. This treatise reviews the philosophical background underlying generation of hypotheses, emphasizes the important characteristics of the specific aims section, and offers a point-by-point roadmap for writing. This perspective arose out of a new Endocrine Society initiative in which senior investigators review the specific aims of next-generation members.
48
Zagury, C. S. "Grant Writing: The Uncertain Road to Funding: Part II: Steps to Writing a Funding Proposal." Complementary Health Practice Review 1, no. 2 (1995): 139–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/153321019500100214.
Full text
49
Lubis, Nazriani, and Asnarni Lubis. "MENYUSUN KARYA ILMIAH DI PERGURUAN TINGGI." Majalah Ilmiah METHODA 13, no. 2 (2023): 109–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.46880/methoda.vol13no2.pp109-114.
Full textAbstract:
Gatrell, et.al, and School Graduate wrote books containing how to write for a thesis, and dissertation. A book titled A Research Design and Proposal Writing in Spatial Science, Second Edition by Gatrell, et.all has a simple and complete explanation so that it is easy to understand and apply to final writing. Also, the book is supplemented with examples of several interesting titles to be the reference of the research authors, by explaining direct examples in explain background writing, survey libraries, research methods, how to explain the data used quantitative or qualitative to how to manage data correctly. The book How to Prepare Thesis Proposal A Guide for MPhil and PhD Students by School Graduates only explains the general lines of the chapters contained in a thesis. It was concluded that the book written by Gatrell, et.al was more dynamic in accordance with the needs of today’s academics since it also provides the components of crafting research grant fund proposal.
50
Faizah, Najmah. "Introduksi Model Perencanaan Pelatihan Grant Writing Skill Bagi Tenaga Harian Lepas – Tenaga Bantu (THL-TB) Penyuluh Pertanian Kabupaten Jember." SEPA: Jurnal Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian dan Agribisnis 15, no. 1 (2018): 70. http://dx.doi.org/10.20961/sepa.v15i1.25054.
Full textAbstract:
<em>The developing of agriculture has many supports from both government and non-government institutions, implementing in the form of grants/assistance/loan to farmers. There are many types grants can be accessed by farmers on the condition of submitting proposals. On the other hand, farmers with a majority of low-educated people find it difficult to perform. As a extension agent, the contract officer (THL-TB) of agricultural extension agents have obligation to provide assistance to the farmers. Unfortunately, they have limitation capacity and access to develop self-capacity cause the number THL-TB of agricultural extension agents have limitation experiences. This study has aims to determine the characteristics of THL-TB of agricultural extension agent in Jember Regency and to analyze the introduction of training plan model of grant writing skill for THL-TB agricultural extension agent in Jember Regency. The analysis method is descriptive analysis and training plan model of Goad. The target of training participants are 48 THL-TB agricultural extension agents in Jember Regency who under 40 years old with highest education (D3 and bachelor degree I). Introducing training plans uses the basis of the Pimentel and Franco approache consist of 3 elements, they are pre-implementation, implementation and post-implementation.</em>