Download
1 / 33
340 likes | 349 Views
Peeking behind the curtain of research funding: Tips for Turning a good idea into a great grant. Tanya Horsley & Martin Pusic. “There is no grantsmanship that will turn a bad idea into a good one, but there are many ways to disguise a good idea.” - Norm Braverman , NIH. Session Objectives.
E N D
Peeking behind the curtain of research funding: Tips for Turning a good idea into a great grant Tanya Horsley & Martin Pusic
“There is no grantsmanship that will turn a bad idea into a good one, but there are many ways to disguise a good idea.” - Norm Braverman, NIH
Session Objectives • Describe and understand best practices of good grantsmanship and peer review • Articulate common elements of grant proposals and how they should be structured • List major international funding opportunities for medical education research / scholarship
Working Assumptions • All of you have written or have contributed to at least one application for research funding • Your role is predominantly to support others in their work of applying for research funding • You understand the basics of ‘following eligibility’ criteria when applying for research grants Research Task Force
A few questions… • How many of you have been successful in receiving a research-related grant as PI? • How many of you hold a Tier 1-level grant? Document Title
Context (Jan D. Carline, PhD) • Confirm perceptions of support for medical education research • May issues 2000-2004 • 72% did not report funding • (assumed) conducted through course of employment • Funding from departmental/institutional awards, federal sources, national institutions, foundations, private donors
Canada has been identified as a world leader in medical education research || Doja, Horsley & Sampson (2014)
2/3 of research not funded by outside institutions…those that are funded – seriously underfunded|| Reed et al. (2005)
Unfunded research leads researchers to change study protocols in order to proceed with their work|| El-Sawi et al. (2015
Medical education research suffers from a significant, persistent lack of funding|| Gruppen & Durning (2016)
Without proper research funding, how can medical education be evidence based?|| Archer et al. (2015)
Gap in knowledge about our own RC funding program || Seek a deeper understanding of the impact of RC funding on medical education in Canada
Funding Education Research Scholarship FundERS Canada
What we are hearing (in Canada) • “There is not a lot of funding available for medical education related research. The RC funding is one of the most important sources of funding available for med ed research in Canada.” • “It has provided valuable resources to support high level education research. This is one of the most important sources of support for the excellent work occurring in Canada, and was essential in situating Canada as a leader in health professions education research” • “It funded work that I think is important. Having a RC funded grant on my CV is a signal to others that my research is important.” • “That project would had been hard to get funded somewhere else, and thus, wouldn't have had been realized without the RC contribution.” • “Having sufficient funds to hire a RA for data collection and management that would otherwise not have been feasible; AND (equally important) being recognized by my department as worthy of providing me with protected time and salary support (small amount) for education research.”
Small Group Exercise The case: "You're charged with increasing the grant success of your 0.2FTE (or 0.8FTE) faculty's success in education grant competitions. What would you do?" • Come up with your top 10 recommendations • Split them into short and long term • Report back Document Title
Grant Writing 101 – Why write grants? • Can’t get funding unless you write one • Professionally fulfilling • Requires (helps) you to focus your thoughts • Armed with reviewers comments the second proposal is always stronger • Build teams and strengthen networks
Grant Writing Advice • Ensure effective communication of your ideas by taking plenty of time to write your proposal • Clearly state the significance and innovative potential of your grant • Choose a research project that you are excited about • Be sure to communicate the expertise and experience of the Nominated Principal Applicant and all team members (i.e., brag) • Ensure that you have the right research team composition
Grant Writing Advice Con’t • Ensure that your methods are sound and completely described • Consider the timeline and budget early on in the process • Pay attention to all the “small parts” of the grant application • Complete your grant application early and have experienced researchers review and provide feedback well before submitting • For resubmission bevery responsive to the reviewers’ comments
Peer Review • Exemplar Background “The review of literature is well developed and integrated into a compelling argument explaining the importance and relevance of the study for medical education as a field, including both practicing physicians and residents. The five-fold gap in the literature is clearly laid out, and explains the parameters of the study’s design. It is an impressive understanding of the literature, the gap therein, and the challenges of studying a phenomenon that has been traditionally conceptualized as an “individual” phenomenon but also has broader cultural and institutional compounding factors. The findings from this study will surely offer insights that could meaningfully enhance not only specialty medical education, but CPD as well.”
Peer Review The authors clearly establish a gap that needs to be addressed: the voices of Indigenous learners and practicing physicians about their careers in medicine. Given the authors’ interest in exploring the lived experiences of Indigenous learners and practicing physicians, I am confused as to why the authors selected constructivist grounded theory for their research methodology. I am surprised that the authors aren’t taking a phenomenological approach. Given that phenomenology has at its roots the study of consciousness as experienced by individuals, this would seem to be a methodology more in line with the study’s research questions. In fact, hermeneutic phenomenology would be uniquely aligned with the authors’ stated research intentions. Further, I don’t see in the proposal submission a discussion of the theory or theoretical construct that will be developed via the research. One of the hallmarks of grounded theory (be it constructivist or more traditional / post-positivist leaning) is the development of an explanatory theory. I wonder if the researchers are borrowing techniques from constructivist grounded theory but don’t aim to follow the methodology’s aim of theory development.
Peer Review • Another gap in the description of research methodology and methods is the way the researchers will handle the ethics of studying an Indigenous population. I see that that the PI has extensive background engaging in research of Indigenous populations, but the breadth of that knowledge and experience isn’t made clear in the proposal. Do any of the members of the research team come from an Indigenous culture? How will the team work with this population to develop knowledge instead of being another colonizing voice speaking for / about the Indigenous population? How will this research avoid appropriating the voice of the research participants? I am certain that the research team has considered this ethical concern and has a plan for handling it, but it is not clearly described in the proposal. Having experience doing this work is important, but the proposal doesn’t detail how ethical concerns (such as those mentioned previously) will be addressed.
Peer Review • Suggestions: In applying for research funding, this project with its laudable intervention and goal, does not break new ground viewed from a research lens. Background is not well developed in terms of why this might work either on a theoretical basis or in showing us what has been tried previously. The main study instrument, on which all 'did it work?' will hinge on this a custom-developed and without a well specified recipe for doing so (valid? Reliable?).
The ‘Summary’ • Show that you understand the problem • Demonstrate that this is an important problem to solve, not only at Whitworth, but regionally and nationally as well • Clearly describe the aspects of the problem that your project will address, and what gaps this will fill • Describe the theoretical or conceptual basis for your project and your knowledge of the issues surrounding your proposed project • Include statistical data, if appropriate • Demonstrate that your approach is creative or innovative • Describe how this project fits into the already existing goals of the organization
Where to find funding? • Let’s do some crowdsourcing! • AMEE • Society of Directors in Medical Education (SDRME) • Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada • PSI • MCC • NBME (Stemmler) • AHRQ • CIHR • Others?
