Research Grant-Writing Workshop

1. Research Grant-Writing Workshop

2. Contents • Topic Selection • Foundation Research Focus • Grant Application Process • Why Proposals are not Funded • Sample Funded Proposal

3. Choosing a Topic • Relevant • Interesting • Focused

4. Topic Selection • Choose an area of study that fascinates you. • Keep it simple but informative. • Keep writing things down to clarify your thinking.

5. Clinical practice Professional issues Explore Theories Educational issues Research Reports Searching for Topics

6. Non peer-reviewed Trade Magazines Internet sites Peer-reviewed Professional Journals Research Journals Where to start?

7. Foundation’s Research Focus • Broaden the participation of radiologic technologists in studies of the radiologic sciences. • Increase the body of knowledge that is crucial for the advancement of professionals in the field.

8. Research Agenda • Education • Methods, curricula, issues • Management • Challenges, workforce, tools, issues • Practice • Change, patients, professional development, issues • Technology • Adapting, assessing, issues

9. Grant Application Process • Research Mentor Available Upon Request • Submit Letter of Intent (Optional) • Submit Full Proposal • Application deadlines, March and August 1st • RGAP review • Board of Trustees funding decision • Award categories • Fully Funded • Partially Funded

10. Letter of Intent (Optional) • Applicant information • Problems/issues to be addressed • Objectives • Approach and activities • Estimated timeframe and total budget

11. Application Form Table of Contents Abstract Itemized Budget Appendices: CVs/Resumes Institutional Assurances Cooperating Institutions Narrative: Statement of Problem Specific Aims Literature Review Proposed Activities Calendar Personnel Facilities and Equipment Proposal Contents

12. Review Criteria • Significance/relevance of the proposal • Qualifications/resources of the principal investigator and associated personnel • Adequate address of concerns • Appropriateness of methodology and experimental design • Soundness of budget • Literature review

13. Writer did not follow guidelines provided by funding agency Proposal objectives do not match objectives of funding source Proposal budget is not within range of funding available through the funding agency Proposal is poorly written, hard to understand Problem does not strike reviewer as significant Project objectives are too ambitious in scope Problem has not been documented properly Prospective client groups have not been involved in planning and determining project goals Proposed program has not been coordinated with other individuals and organizations Funding source does not know the capabilities of those submitting the proposal Proposal does not include sufficient evidence that the project can sustain itself beyond the life of the grant Evaluation process is inadequate Why Proposals Are Not Funded Nonprofit Resource Center of Texas (www.nprc.org) How to Write a Winning Proposal

14. Why Proposals Are Not Funded and the all-time favorite, There is not enough money available to fund all the outstanding proposals that are submitted

15. Sample Funded Proposal • Statement of problem • Specific aims • Literature review • Proposed activities • Calendar • Personnel • Facilities and equipment • Budget

16. Sample Funded Proposal • Statement of problem • Education in the radiologic sciences has witnessed rapid change in recent years. The number of educational programs housed in hospitals has declined while programs in community colleges and universities have been on the rise.

17. Sample Funded Proposal • Statement of problem • Educational programs housed in community colleges and universities bring new challenges to the radiologic technology (R.T.) educator. • Issues particularly challenging for R.T. educators are the need to participate in academic activities of service and scholarship in order to achieve promotion and tenure.

18. Sample Funded Proposal • Statement of problem* • Although some would argue that radiologic technologists should not be held to the same high standard [of scholarship] as other disciplines. • Additionally, the expectations and resources for community and professional service along with research and scholarship may vary greatly from one institution to another. • *Significance, relevance and documentation

19. Sample Funded Proposal • Specific aims • The proposed study will survey R.T. educators to determine characteristics such as, type of degree, position, type of educational institution, research productivity, and perceived barriers to research.

20. Sample Funded Proposal • Specific aims • What are the demographic characteristics of radiologic technologist educators (i.e., gender, race, age, salary, type of degree, work environment, position title, tenure status)? • What is the scholarly productivity (i.e.: number of publications in peer-reviewed journals, book reviews, books, book chapters, scientific presentations) of the study population? • What are the perceived barriers to research as identified by R.T. educators (i.e. knowledge, release time, assistants, resources, administrative support)?

21. Sample Funded Proposal • Literature Review • Issues of research productivity and tenure have been well established in the allied health professional literature. • It is clearly documented that expectations of research productivity are important criteria for promotion and tenure. • Additionally, the allied health profession has been viewed as lacking in research productivity in comparison to other disciplines.

22. Sample Funded Proposal • Literature Review • A common theme among all of these allied health professions is recognition of the lack of research productivity and its subsequent impact on the profession’s status and faculty’s’ ability to survive in a competitive academic environment.

23. Sample Funded Proposal • Literature Review • The results of a recent study by Legg and Fauber on doctorally prepared radiologic technologists are consistent with the allied health literature in that “radiologic technologists holding doctoral degrees are not productive in research and scholarship”. • What is still not known is the research productivity of R.T.'s holding other levels of degrees. In addition, what do R.T. educators perceive as barriers to research.

24. Sample Funded Proposal • Literature Review* • As a member of the allied health community, R.T. educators play a significant role in preparing future technologists but also in contributing to the continued development of the profession. • Productivity in research and scholarship is considered an important activity to increase the knowledge base of a profession. • The lack of data describing the professional profile of R.T. educators has led to the proposed study. *Cite literature support

25. Sample Funded Proposal • Proposed Activities • This non-experimental survey research study will provide a demographic and professional profile of registered radiologic technologist educators. • A survey questionnaire previously developed by the investigators will be revised for use with the population of R.T. educators. • The survey questionnaire will be used to obtain descriptive data for the research population as well as to assess the respondents' research production, scholarly activities and perceived barriers to research.

26. Sample Funded Proposal • Proposed Activities • A mailing list of registered radiologic technologists self identified as educators (~ 2500) will be obtained from the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists and forwarded to Virginia Commonwealth University’s Survey and Evaluation Research Lab. • The staff from the Institution’s Survey Research Lab will select a simple random population sample (~ 1000), conduct the initial and follow up mailings and data entry.

27. Sample Funded Proposal • Proposed Activities* • Data gathered will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, cross tabulations and correlation methods. • The research results will be compiled to present a demographic and professional profile of R.T. educators. • Results will be presented at various national professional meetings and submitted as a manuscript for publication in Radiologic Technology. *Feasibility and Appropriateness of methodology

28. Sample Funded Proposal • Calendar

29. Sample Funded Proposal • Personnel* • The PI will coordinate and oversee the activities of the listed personnel, assist in survey tool revision, survey distribution, statistical analysis, research results and write a majority of the narrative. • The investigator has experience with funded research projects from the AERS and ASRT. In addition, she has published the results of funded projects in peer-reviewed professional journals. *Qualifications of the principal investigator

30. Sample Funded Proposal • Facilities and Equipment* • Existing office space in the Department of Radiation Sciences, School of Allied Health Professions (SAHP) at Virginia Commonwealth University will be utilized for conducting this project. • The SAHP has a national reputation for quality allied health profession programs in addition to the extensive scholarship of its faculty. • The investigators each have access to personal computers, university mainframe computing, statistical software, spreadsheet software, and Internet access. *Appropriateness of facilities

31. Sample Budget* *Soundness of budget