GRANT WRITING FOR FUNDING Charles E. Osborne, Ed.D. Maradee A. Davis, Ph.D., M.P.H. John G. Freymann, M.D.

n developing a continuing medical education I research proposal for funding, you should fol- low the same principles applicable to any re- search. The first step is to have a quality idea that lends itself to scientific investigation. This idea must be molded into a research hypothesis ( o r series of hypotheses).

Each agency publishes its priorities for hind- ing. Fornmulating your research question to align with the priorities o f the finding agency is crucial. The more closely you can match the priorities o f the agency, the better your chances for favorahle review and funding. You must be caretill t o make sure that this process does not sacrifice the integrity of your original idea.

Always remember that there are multiple sources for hinding. Be sure to investigate all available sources and not limit yourself to large, widely known agencies. There are many state and community organizations which will con- sider supporting research efforts. Once you have identified an agency with an interest in your idea, begin an interactive process with their staff. Involve the agency as an advocate rather than an adversary in developing your proposal.

The next step is to package your proposal. I’ackaging is extremely important. Be sure to carehilly read and follow the agency’s instruc- tions. At this stage, careful attention must be paid t o the quality and commitment o f the principal investigator. The principal investigator should he qualified to conduct the project and commit sufficient time t o really direct the study. If the principal investigator is a junior faculty member,

0 I984 by The Regents of the Llniversity of California for MOi3K1!i Vol. 4, No. 4, October 1984.

you should be aware that some agencies offer newly trained investigator grants specifically de- signed for this level of faculty member.

I n preparing the proposal always write for the reviewer. Make it as easy as possible for the reviewer to understand your study. Making the reviewer’s task difficult will only cause you prob- lems and reduce the likelihood of having your proposal hnded. It is always to your advantage to have: 1) an up-to-date review of the literature; 2) a clear statement of purpose, goals and ob- jectives; 3) a design appropriate to your objec- tives; 4 ) an evaluation and analysis appropriate to your design and data; and 5 ) a description o f the contribution your study will make.

I f your proposal is not funded, do not be discouraged. I f your idea is sound, continue t o pursue funding. Take the reviewers’ comments to heart, incorporate their suggestions which strengthen the study, and resubmit.

(The following piece by Dr. Osborne was given out at the workshop.)

Suggestions for Developing a Successful Research Grant Proposal

Charles E. Osborne, Ed.D.

Priorities and procedures of the funding organization

be sure to specifically word the proposal t o best serve the priorities of the hnding organ- ization-do not expect the reviewers to be impressed by weak or implied relationships

OSBORNE et al. 87

follow the application procedures exactly- do not submit a proposal to a new organiza- tion in the format of the organization where the proposal was originally submitted and turned down for funding research the types of projects hnded by the organization in the past know as much as possible about the back- ground of those who are likely to review your proposal and structure your efforts to please them-do not try to educate or change the views of the reviewers with your proposal carefully reveiw the criteria upon which your proposal will be judged and be sure to present a clear response to each criterion

Creative, innovative and original do not be trivial do not offer to repeatbalidate another’s re- search unless the study is in a controversial area provide a quality, up-to-date literature review which supports your study- do not leave out major works which disagree with your ap- proach; cite them and explain how/why you will be able to overcome any problems

Goals and objectives clearly state goals/objectives- do not bury them in the text and expect the reviewer to be able to find them limit the goals/objectives t o what is possible to accomplish in the study period limit the goals/objectives to what is measur- able always have additional goals/objectives you intend to accomplish that are not stated in the proposal

Contribution clearly state the contribution the results of your study will make to the profession clearly state how the results will be used at your institution, how they may be applied at another institution and what other institutions are likely to benefit

the broader the contribution the better

Design be sure the design is appropriate for the stated goals/objectives provide a detailed timetable/schedule of ac- tivities do not ignore design problems, answer them and show that you have recognized the problem and have a plan to overcome each problem clearly identify the study population clearly identify the study sample-be sure to include sample size, sampling procedures and likely response rate or the percentage of those invited who are likely to agree to participate identify problems you expect to encounter and your proposed solutions - do not leave the identification of potential problems to the reviewer choose a design which will allow you to do more than just the stated goals/objectives describe how results will b e analyzed and results interpreted choose appropriate statistical methods be sure to have adequate controls limit the number o f variables

Evaluation be sure the evaluation procedures are appro- priate for the design and goals/objectives (summative evaluation) be sure to have methods for monitoring proj- ect progress ( formative evaluation) identify the method by which each goal/ objective will be evaluated identify potential problems and your plan to overcome these problems justify why you have chosen a particular eval- uation method/tool include an evaluation of cost effectiveness

Personnel the more qualified the Principal Investigator the better

88 MOBIUS

clearly state the qualifications of the Principal Investigator as related to the study goal/ objectives be sure the Principal Investigator is involved at an appropriate time commitment list relarant publications on the biographical sketches

0 build a case for the quality of the Principal Investigator and support staff in the literature review by citing as many of their related pa- pers as possible

0 have an appropriate level of staff support- do not pad/exaggerate the staff necessary to complete the project

support clearly identify institutional support/contribu- tions including money, personnel, facilities, materials, equipment, space, supplies include letters of support from appropriate institutional administrators

0 include letters of support from those outside the institution who play a key role in the study (e.g., appropriate administrator of a study site or consultants)

identify any pilot work underway or com- pleted at your institution’s expense identify how the institution will implement the results of your study and/or provide con- tinued support after the budget period

choose high quality consultants

0 be accurate conform to the funding organization’s guide- lines be sure to budget a realistic amount which is enough to accomplish the study- too low a budget to accomplish the proposed design is viewed as negatively as a padded budget

0 include a few fringe items which would be nice t o receive, but are expendable

0 know the absolute minimum needed to con- duct the study

0 clearly identify how much is needed to ac- complish each goaBobjective so that if you are forced t o cut the budget you may be able t o negotiate for a reduced product

0 be sure to clearly justify each item in the budget - if you can not justify each item, do not expect the reviewer to be able to see its necessity

0 do not accept an award for less than is needed and expect to be able to get increased fund- ing at a later date

General read and understand all the forms/booklets/ procedures and exactly follow the funding organization’s rules

0 be clear and concise-do not ramble 0 duplicate to emphasize- not all reviewers

read the whole proposal 0 stay away from jargon 0 have the proposal well organized- help the

reviewers find what they are likely to be look- ing for d o not have typographical errors and mis- spelled words be consistent in all statements, numbers, dates, etc. keep follow-up studies in mind and have this proposal serve as ground work for future investigations make use of grants staff available at your institute

0 have the proposal critiqued by someone with a similar background to those likely to review for the funding organization have the proposal critiqued for logical flow by a person who knows little about the field.

00

Charles E. Osborne, W.D. Dr. Osborne is assistant dean for Continuing Medical Edu- cation and professor, Department of Medical Education, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield, Illinois.

Maradee A. Davis, Ph.D., M.P.H. Dr. Davis is adjunct assistant professor and a..sistant director, Andrew W Mellon Program in Clinical Epidemiology, h i - versity of California, San Francisco.

John G. Freymann, M.D. Dr. Freymann is president of the National Fund for Medical Education, Hartford, Connecticut.