Fund your Research: Grant-writing Panel


Detailed Evaluation Results for Fund Your Research: Grant-Writing

29 of the 36 (15 women, 11 men, and 3 undisclosed) faculty that attended completed evaluations.

Faculty felt that the workshop aided them in improving their ability to develop grants that will be funded. Survey results showed that participants learned to interact with the program officer to get information and obtain copies of previously funded proposals. "Don't give up. It’s normal that a proposal goes through several interventions." They mentioned that they will "cite papers from previously funded scientists" and that they will "make sure the message is crystal clear and use novel ideas that reviewers have never heard of."

Overall, faculty thought it was "very helpful and were glad they came." They appreciated the examples and tips the panelist shared. However, they also suggested that in the future, they would like to have "more examples" and "more diversity in speakers."

Questions & Responses

The workshop lived up to my expectations.
N=28 Mean=4.36 SD=0.73 Range= 1 (strongly disagree)- 5 (strongly agree)

I learned useful information at this workshop that will improve my ability to write grants and fund my research.
N=28 Mean=4.32 SD=0.94 Range= 1 (strongly disagree)- 5 (strongly agree)

I am glad I took the time to participate in this presentation.
N=28 Mean=4.32 SD=0.98 Range= 1 (strongly disagree)- 5 (strongly agree)

Questions & Answers:

Give an example of at least one thing you learned from this workshop and will take to use in your work.

  • Tips given by Dr. Gaiser were very useful. Other panel members also provided useful tips for proposals.
  • Tips about the application process excite individuals that may be renewing their proposals.
  • Every speaker said something different.
  • Don't give up. It’s normal that a proposal goes through several interventions.
  • Catchy name.
  • Optimal interaction with program officers.
  • Novel ideas get funding, explaining broader impacts, make importance clear.
  • Organize and plan the grant writing.
  • Cite papers from previously funded scientists.
  • Use catchy hook or phrase for broader impact.
  • Don't cite papers "unprep" and "submitted.”
  • Know the P.O.
  • When resubmitting, address changes based on previous reviews.
  • Check awards database to see what was/is being funded.
  • Make sure your message is crystal clear and use novel ideas that reviewers have never heard of for the best chance of funding.
  • For funding - I will approach the program officer to discuss feasibility of the grant idea.
  • Call or write to the program officer to get information. Obtain copies of funded proposals.

Is there anything that could have been improved about this session?

  • Session should target different groups: students, young research faculty and faculty going for tenured positions. A few sessions per year should be organized.
  • Maybe solicit questions in advance of the talk for the panel to answer.
  • More diversity in speakers - all were from biology or chemistry.
  • More of such sessions.
  • Be sure that all slides presented are reviewed, so that grammar and spelling is accurate. I can get distracted when the flow is interrupted.
  • More structure. More examples.
  • No, perfect.
  • Seems all right for physical/life sciences.
  • Panelists should talk beforehand, much overlap of PowerPoints and topics.
  • Specific examples.
  • More speakers
  • Show proposals and find good and flaws within it.
  • Provide slides for each presentation.
  • More speakers.

General Comments about the sessions or overall workshop?

  • Schedule of discussion topics should be presented to the attendees.
  • I appreciate the presenters and they were very honest about their experiences. It is not just doing "official" good things but that personal, informal information that actually matters.
  • Good workshop.
  • Very helpful, glad I came.
  • Thank you for organizing this.
  • Presenters could describe which agencies fund what type of research.