1 / 52

Introduction to CHIP, and Some Reflections on Grant Writing from the Trenches

Rev. 6/18/14 , 1:30pm. Introduction to CHIP, and Some Reflections on Grant Writing from the Trenches. Jeffrey D. Fisher, Ph.D. Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor of Psychology Director, Center for Health, Intervention, and Prevention University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

mickey
Download Presentation

Introduction to CHIP, and Some Reflections on Grant Writing from the Trenches

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Rev. 6/18/14, 1:30pm Introduction to CHIP, andSome Reflections on Grant Writing from the Trenches Jeffrey D. Fisher, Ph.D.Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor of PsychologyDirector, Center for Health, Intervention, and PreventionUniversity of Connecticut, Storrs, CT CHIP Grantsmanship Training Workshop for Health Behavior ResearchersJune 19 and 20, 2014

  2. Welcome to CHIP

  3. Although CHIP began in 2002 with a focus on HIV prevention, it is now a University Research Center with internationally known scientists in the fields of HIV prevention, obesity prevention, medication adherence, exercise science, autism, cancer prevention, complementary and alternative medicine, meta-analysis, and experts in other health domains as well. At CHIP, these researchers -- from disciplines representing almost every school and college at UConn -- work together to address critical public health-related problems.

  4. CHIP’s Mission The University of Connecticut’s Center for Health, Intervention, and Prevention (CHIP): • Creates new scientific knowledge and theoretical frameworks in the areas of health behavior, health behavior change, health intervention, and prevention. • Health is broadly defined and may include physical and mental health, and outcomes with critical implications for health (e.g., decreasing stress).

  5. CHIP’s Mission (continued) • CHIP encourages work at the intersection of behavior and biology (e.g., increasing medication adherence). This includes genomics, which has strong psychological, physiological, and behavioral health-related components (e.g., decisions to receive genetic testing). • CHIP disseminates its research and cutting-edge interventions widely.

  6. CHIP serves as a nexus for investigators at the University of Connecticut and other institutions to form cross-disciplinary, collaborative partnerships for the development of research in health behavior and health behavior change.

  7. CHIP Research Network • Our network includes more than 225 affiliate scientists from almost all of the schools and colleges at the University of Connecticut, from other universities, and from other institutions. • Our boundary spanner, Jennifer Wang, can find you almost any type of expertise you might need in your grant proposal from our affiliate network. Jennifer Wang Program Coordinator and Boundary Spanner

  8. CHIP Total Cumulative Costs Awarded

  9. CHIP Total Costs ExpendedFY02 vs. FY14

  10. Countries in which CHIPCurrently has Funded Projects

  11. CHIP Grant Proposals Submitted • CHIP Affiliates submit about $50M in CHIP grants each year.

  12. CHIP Services

  13. CHIP Lecture Series The CHIP Lecture Series hosts about 20 speakers annually, many of whom are internationally recognized researchers. The lectures are streamed live and also are archived on CHIP’s website. Jennifer Wang Donna Hawkins Program Coordinator and Boundary Spanner Program Assistant The CHIP Programs and Research Development Team is responsible for the CHIP Lecture Series

  14. CHIP InternalSeed Grant Opportunities Generally, CHIP has a seed grant competition for CHIP faculty affiliates, in which they can submit an application for funding pilot work in any area of health behavior change in which they plan to write an external grant. CHIP also offers graduate student seed grants. Seed grant announcements will be available in September on the CHIP website (http://www.chip.uconn.edu/). (Jen Wang administers all CHIP seed grant programs.)

  15. CHIP Services CHIP offers: Pre-submission review of the overall content of external grant proposals by outside experts. Methodological and statistical pre-submission review of grant proposals. Writing of the power analysis and data analysis sections by our statistical consultant. Access to samples of awarded internal and external grants. Searches for external grant funding opportunities.

  16. CHIP Interest Groups CHIP recruits and mobilizes networks of health researchers with common interests in “interest groups” (Obesity, Cancer, e/mHealth, HIV, and Health Marketing). CHIP Associate Director Deborah Cornman coordinates the CHIP interest groups and works closely with interest group directors and members to increase CHIP grant submissions in the areas that the interest groups serve.

  17. CHIP Grants Management Support Services Pre- and Post-Award Grants Management Personnel and Payroll Purchasing Travel Susan Hoge Melissa Stone AnnMarie White Kathy Moriarty Personnel, Payroll Head of CHIP Admin Team Grants, Purchasing, Travel Grants Management Grants Management

  18. CHIP Technology Support CHIP IT Support Services Provides assistance at interface of IT and health behavior science (e.g., creating Internet-based interventions). Provides assistance with eHealth/mHealth technology. Chris Tarricone Josh Hardin Director of IT at CHIP IT Support Consultant

  19. Some Reflectionsfrom the Trenches:Organized (and More Dissociated) Thoughts from25 Years of Grant Writing, and$25M in funding as anNIH Principal Investigator

  20. Grants Involve Scientific Writing, Which Can be Painful

  21. My Thoughts on Scientific Writing • While it can be painful when it is in process, scientific writing can be a source of creativity, great pleasure, and a contribution you can make to posterity when the writing is complete. • One needs to do at least an hour of scientific writing every day. You’ll be amazed how much you can write in a week, a month, and in a year.

  22. My Thoughts on Scientific Writing(continued) • Don’t have much ego involved in the early drafts – try to write a complete draft quickly and early in the writing process, without worrying too much about its quality. You will feel relief – all you have to do now is improve it! • Do your scientific writing the first thing each day. When you are done, you will feel you have accomplished one of the most important things you could have done that day!

  23. My Thoughts on Scientific Writing(continued) • Write early drafts in a relaxed atmosphere in which you are not self-critical; allow creative thoughts to emerge and incorporate them, uncensored. See if they pass the “test of time” as you edit the document. • Don’t ever be so invested in what you have written that you are conflicted at making changes to it, or even in eliminating large sections to improve the document.

  24. My Thoughts on Scientific Writing(continued) • One should read a manuscript or a grant proposal front to back many times at different junctures during the writing process, making changes throughout it each time. • One needs to spend much more time revising a manuscript or a grant proposal than writing the initial draft. Make many sets of revisions. Keep revising it until you think it is exceptional, and believe that others will agree.

  25. Writing a Successful Grant • To me, grant writing has always felt like a lottery in which pages of PHS 398 or SF 424 are filled with my research dreams and fantasies. By writing great prose, I can increase my chances of winning (being funded) dramatically. PHS Form 398

  26. Writing a Successful Grant • (continued) • Its always seemed amazing to me that I could write my private thoughts about “the way the world works” on NIH grant forms and get several million dollars from the U.S. government to fund every aspect of the research necessary to find out if I am right or wrong. • When you think about it, that is really quite remarkable.

  27. Writing a Successful Grant • (continued) • To write a successful grant, you have to become obsessed with what you are doing; writing a fundable grant is all-consuming. • You need to spend considerable time on it every day. • You need to think about it while falling asleep and while taking a shower.

  28. Writing a Successful Grant • (continued) • You have to believe deeply in what you are proposing, be highly enthusiastic about it, and it has to be written so that this is contagious to those reviewing the proposal. • These days, you won’t get funded unless what you write is exceptional. Don’t even think about writing a grant unless you are willing to do everything in your power to make it outstanding; otherwise, it’s a waste of time.

  29. Writing a Successful Grant • (continued) • Coming Up with the Research Idea for a Grant • When I was in graduate school I worried that I would choose a research focus that someone else had already fully addressed. • It has never happened in 43 years. • When I am immersed in a research area, and have read widely in it, I am constantly getting ideas about critical things that are missing from the literature, or critical next steps that might make major conceptual or applied contributions to the area of study. There are good ideas for grants.

  30. Writing a Successful Grant • (continued) • I also get research and grant ideas at CHIP brown bags, in conversations with colleagues, when reviewing others’ papers for publication, and while I am engaged in mundane, unrelated activities. • I have a pen with a post it pad next to my bed, and sometimes I call my voicemail in the middle of the night to record a research or grant idea. • Some ideas “stick” and others do not survive my own scrutiny when I revisit them over time, or the scrutiny of my research team.

  31. Writing a Successful Grant • (continued) • I think that if one is immersed and deeply interested in a research domain, lets him- or herself be creative without self-censoring, he or she will not have problems coming up with good ideas for grants. • The trick is deciding which are the most innovative, important, timely, yet feasible, and likely to be reviewed well and funded.

  32. Writing a Successful Grant • (continued) • A grant, like an article, has to tell a story. • It has to be a GOOD story for an article – a GREAT story for a grant. • You have to convince the grant reviewers that you are proposing to perform research in an important area, that has critical things UNDONE, and that you will do some of the most important of these, systematically.

  33. Writing a Successful Grant (continued) • For health grants, you have to convince the reviewer that there is a terrible health problem that exists, and later in the grant, convince them that you have a powerful idea that might help to resolve it. • I call this my “Horribleness/Terribleness Paragraph.” (From my South Africa Options Grant.) “The HIV epidemic in South Africa has created catastrophic human suffering that extends to all segments of society, threatening the future prosperity and viability of the country (Thomas, 2004). It is estimated that between 1.2 and 2.3 million South Africans have died from HIV/AIDS; that 70% of deaths among South Africans aged 15-49 are attributable to AIDS; and that more than 600,000 South African children have been orphaned by this disease (Dorrington et al., 2004; Rehle & Shisana, 2003). AIDS-related morbidity and mortality have also had an enormous economic impact on South Africa, from the cost of caring for the dying to a dramatic reduction in the workforce (Mhone, 2002).”

  34. The Literature Review • You must convince the reader that something critical is missing from the current understanding of the problem or with past attempts to resolve it, and that YOU will “fill in the critical missing piece.”: “There are few completed U.S. trials of successful HIV transmission risk reduction interventions designed specifically for PLWHA (Fisher et al., 2004, 2006; Kalichman et al., 2001; Richardson et al., 2002; Wingood et al., 2004), and to our knowledge, there have been no such trials in South Africa. (Of relevance, however, is a brief, IMB model-based HIV-risk reduction counseling intervention for South African STI clinic patients at high risk for HIV, but who have not been diagnosed with HIV, that was found to be effective at increasing HIV preventive behavior; Simbayi et al., 2004b). The scarcity of research regarding effective HIV prevention interventions for PLWHA in South Africa, together with the potential for such interventions to have an important impact, especially when delivered in the context of clinical care, highlights the need for development of interventions to assist South African PLWHA to reduce HIV transmission risk behavior.”

  35. The Literature Review (continued) • A strong literature review for a grant should later be able to be published independently in a top tier journal. Don’t let its final resting place be the unpublished body of your grant. • Two of my literature reviews for grants were later published in Psychological Bulletin.

  36. The Grant Body • The work which is proposed in a health behavior change grant must have critical conceptual and applied implications. Often, but not always, lack of relevant theory can hurt one’s chances of being funded. • A health behavior grant usually entails a series of studies, or several phases of proposed research. • They must progress logically from one to another. • It can never appear that particular research findings from work early in your grant are a precondition for your performing the work which you propose to do later in the grant.

  37. The Grant Body (continued) • It can never appear that you may ultimately find that any critical aspect of the proposed research is not feasible to perform. • You often need to cite your own pilot work or others’ earlier research in a similar or related area and using similar methodology in order to prove the feasibility of the proposed research.

  38. A Paradox • If you provide too much evidence that your work will (almost certainly) be successful the reviewers likely will not fund it. • If you provide too little evidence that your work will be successful the reviewers likely will not fund it. • There needs to be a good potential that the proposed work will solve an important conceptual and/or applied problem but it can’t be a “slam dunk,” or it may appear there is no reason to fund it.

  39. Some Dissociated Thoughts • The proposed work shouldn’t be too ambitious for your stage of career and previous experience leading grant funded projects. There are appropriate grant mechanisms for every level of previous grant funding and every career stage. • If there are potentially contradictory findings/predictions to your research which are more or less equally likely, either must be important and have implications for health.

  40. Some Dissociated Thoughts (continued) • CADILLAC Assumption: It doesn’t matter what it costs (within reason); propose to do the research well! You are not spending your own money or trying to save it; your job is to do ‘world class’ research. • Assemble the very best possible team. Don’t be limited by your institution or your colleagues. Recruit the very best people in the field to join you in the grant proposal. • If there are any weaknesses in your own background/ experience/strengths, add others to the research team who have those strengths.

  41. Some Dissociated Thoughts (continued) • The Proposal: • must be extremely well-written. • must ultimately have a simple, parsimonious, powerful, intuitively appealing theme. • must be user-friendly to read and to interact with. • If you make it painful for the reviewers to read it, they will make the outcome of the review painful to you!

  42. Some Dissociated Thoughts (continued) • In the proposal, at every stage, do more than the minimum: • Do pilot work and report its results. • Include appendices with drafts of your outcome measures, possible intervention content, etc. • If you are using a new technology, provide an early version of a sample of it to demonstrate that your team can master the technology (LifeWindows example.)

  43. Anticipating Problems • A grant writer must look at his or her proposal with a microscope searching for potential weaknesses and refute them either by changing the proposal so they are no longer present, or by convincing the reader they are not highly problematic. • Any possible flaw must be anticipated and refuted almost immediately, before it becomes troubling to the reader • It is critical to have knowledgeable others who are not involved in the proposed work and who can think “out of the box” review the grant and see if there are any weakness that you have not envisioned. (CHIP can help you with that.)

  44. Proper Balance between Lab and Field Work and Between Conceptual and Applied Content • I believe that in the best health promotion grants, there is strong theory and strong potential for application of the work for practical (health) benefit. • Health promotion research must generally be done in the “real world” with participants at real risk for a particular health condition. • Laboratory work is possible as part of a health promotion grant, but not a large part. • I’ve seen many attempts to try to apply the typical social psychology laboratory research paradigm to health problems which fail miserably in review because it is too synthetic.

  45. Statistics Section • The statistics section should be written by a statistician who can make complicated statistics understandable to an intelligent scientist on the review panel who is not a statistician. • I believe that the best statistician for a project is someone knowledgeable in terms of sophisticated statistics, but also in your content area, so he or she can not only understand your results but also suggest alternative analyses that are meaningful. • Blair will tell you more.

  46. The Review Committee: • Study the Membership of the Committee that will Review the Proposal.

  47. The Review Committee • Know their areas of expertise, prejudices, and likely views in areas relevant to your proposal (MEMS cap adherence story) • Don’t forget to cite their work if it is relevant • Be gentle if you are claiming that their work is problematic. • Rick will tell you more.

  48. The Budget:Getting More Bang for the Buck • In the budget justification, make it appear that you are going to great lengths to save money. If reviewers see one item that seems excessive, they may think the entire budget is excessive.

  49. The Budget:Getting More Bang for the Buck • The “Optics: can also be important • A no treatment control group can be a no cost natural history cohort (two for the price of one.). • A no treatment time and attention control group can test another intervention the target population may need, but which won’t affect the primary outcome variable (two for the price of one). • In my high school grant proposal I pitted three different types of HIV prevention interventions different types of schools would want to use vs. a “standard instruction” control condition. This could have identified 3 effective HIV prevention interventions for use in schools, not just one (three for the price of one).

More Related