1. Bridging Disciplinary Boundaries: Reflections of an “Unreconstructed Interdisciplinarian" Krista M. Wilkinson, Ph.D. Communication Sciences and Disorders, Penn State University The University of Massachusetts Medical School - Shriver Center

2. Outline A brief overview of my own interdisciplinary career What makes for a good interdisciplinary approach? Grant writing from an interdisciplinary perspective An overview of the NIH system

3. Outline A brief overview of my own interdisciplinary career What makes for a good interdisciplinary approach? Grant writing from an interdisciplinary perspective An overview of the NIH system

4. My training is in Experimental/Developmental Psychology. All of my work centers on understanding and improving communication interventions for individuals with severe disabilities But…. My dissertation advisor was a Speech- Language Pathologist Scholarly collaborations… 1992- present: Behavior Analysis – Vocabulary Expansion and Related Intervention in Severe Disabilities. Grants include: NICHD HD R21 35015 (Vocabulary Expansion in Severe Mental Retardation; Wilkinson, PI, 1998-2004) NICHD HD P01 25995 (Co-I Projects 2 & 6, 1994-1999; PI Project 4, 1999-2005; PI Project 2, 2007-2012) 1992- present: Behavior Analysis – Vocabulary Expansion and Related Intervention in Severe Disabilities. Grants include: NICHD HD R21 35015 (Vocabulary Expansion in Severe Mental Retardation; Wilkinson, PI, 1998-2004) NICHD HD P01 25995 (Co-I Projects 2 & 6, 1994-1999; PI Project 4, 1999-2005; PI Project 2, 2007-2012)

6. Training: Experimental/Developmental Psychology. All of my work centers on understanding and improving communication interventions for individuals with severe disabilities But…. My dissertation advisor was a Speech- Language Pathologist Scholarly collaborations… 1992- present: Behavior Analysis – Vocabulary Expansion and Related Intervention in Severe Disabilities. Grants include: NICHD HD R21 35015 (Vocabulary Expansion in Severe Mental Retardation; Wilkinson, PI, 1998-2004) NICHD HD P01 25995 (Co-I Projects 2 & 6, 1994-1999; PI Project 4, 1999-2005; PI Project 2, 2007-2012) 1992- present: Behavior Analysis – Vocabulary Expansion and Related Intervention in Severe Disabilities. Grants include: NICHD HD R21 35015 (Vocabulary Expansion in Severe Mental Retardation; Wilkinson, PI, 1998-2004) NICHD HD P01 25995 (Co-I Projects 2 & 6, 1994-1999; PI Project 4, 1999-2005; PI Project 2, 2007-2012) 1995-2004: Social Psychology – Influence of Gender on Communication in Severe Disabilities. Grants include: Supplement to NICHD HD P01 25995 (Gender influences on communication patterns in MR; Wilkinson, PI, 1995-1997) NICHD HD R03 043309 (Status & gender influences on perceptions of MR; Wilkinson & Mast, PIs, 2004-2007) 1995-2004: Social Psychology – Influence of Gender on Communication in Severe Disabilities. Grants include: Supplement to NICHD HD P01 25995 (Gender influences on communication patterns in MR; Wilkinson, PI, 1995-1997) NICHD HD R03 043309 (Status & gender influences on perceptions of MR; Wilkinson & Mast, PIs, 2004-2007)

8. Training: Experimental/Developmental Psychology. All of my work centers on understanding and improving communication interventions for individuals with severe disabilities But…. My dissertation advisor was a Speech- Language Pathologist Scholarly collaborations… 1992- present: Behavior Analysis – Vocabulary Expansion and Related Intervention in Severe Disabilities. Grants include: NICHD HD R21 35015 (Vocabulary Expansion in Severe Mental Retardation; Wilkinson, PI, 1998-2004) NICHD HD P01 25995 (Co-I Projects 2 & 6, 1994-1999; PI Project 4, 1999-2005; PI Project 2, 2007-2012) 1992- present: Behavior Analysis – Vocabulary Expansion and Related Intervention in Severe Disabilities. Grants include: NICHD HD R21 35015 (Vocabulary Expansion in Severe Mental Retardation; Wilkinson, PI, 1998-2004) NICHD HD P01 25995 (Co-I Projects 2 & 6, 1994-1999; PI Project 4, 1999-2005; PI Project 2, 2007-2012) 1995-2004: Social Psychology – Influence of Gender on Communication in Severe Disabilities. Grants include: Supplement to NICHD HD P01 25995 (Gender influences on communication patterns in MR; Wilkinson, PI, 1995-1997) NICHD HD R03 043309 (Status & gender influences on perceptions of MR; Wilkinson & Mast, PIs, 2004-2007) 1995-2004: Social Psychology – Influence of Gender on Communication in Severe Disabilities. Grants include: Supplement to NICHD HD P01 25995 (Gender influences on communication patterns in MR; Wilkinson, PI, 1995-1997) NICHD HD R03 043309 (Status & gender influences on perceptions of MR; Wilkinson & Mast, PIs, 2004-2007) 2004-present: Cognitive Neuroscience –Tools of Neuroscience & Communication Processing in Severe Disabilities. Grants include: Eyetracking: NICHD HD P01 25995 (2007-2012), NIDRR H133E140026 (AAC-RERC; Light, PI), Hintz Communicative Competence Award SSRI Seed funding for adding various neuroscience tools: EEG: Brain-based electrophysiological responses to visual supports used in communication and education: Do visual communication displays elicit the N400 response to “categorical/semantic mismatch”; With Rick Gilmore, Psychology fMRI: The translational potential of visual neuroscience in the design of communication supports for individuals with disabilities; With Nancy Dennis, Psychology Movement Science (kinematics); Motor Behavior and Visual Communication Aids; With Bob Sainburg, Kinesiology 2004-present: Cognitive Neuroscience –Tools of Neuroscience & Communication Processing in Severe Disabilities. Grants include: Eyetracking: NICHD HD P01 25995 (2007-2012), NIDRR H133E140026 (AAC-RERC; Light, PI), Hintz Communicative Competence Award SSRI Seed funding for adding various neuroscience tools: EEG: Brain-based electrophysiological responses to visual supports used in communication and education: Do visual communication displays elicit the N400 response to “categorical/semantic mismatch”; With Rick Gilmore, Psychology fMRI: The translational potential of visual neuroscience in the design of communication supports for individuals with disabilities; With Nancy Dennis, Psychology Movement Science (kinematics); Motor Behavior and Visual Communication Aids; With Bob Sainburg, Kinesiology

10. ……Side note….. Don’t disrespect small grant mechanisms! Every single one of these most recent efforts in the area of applications of the tools of neuroscience (eyetracking, EEG, fMRI, kinematics) was initiated with seed funding, either from external (ASHA) or internal (PSU SSRI) sources. In fact, every one of these projects was initiated with awards of $5,000 to $20,000. A little money goes a long way, and a long way toward putting you in a position of larger awards. So seek out the small foundation grants, internal and external to your organization …. Because they will indeed, be the “seeds” that grow your research program.

11. Outline A brief overview of my own interdisciplinary career What makes for a good interdisciplinary approach? Grant writing from an interdisciplinary perspective An overview of the NIH system

12. The “Natural History” of Interdisciplinary Efforts: I have learned in the course of my career in inter- or cross-disciplinary research that the following three things are highly likely to happen:

13. Pretty! Oversimplification

14. Noticing only some of the relevant things Watching for… And missing…

15. Using the wrong word or phrase Excuse me while I kiss this guy… Dennis and 7T magnet

16. I have also learned that there will be one of two responses from colleagues: The insecure people will respond like this…. But the smart folks will respond like this…

17. Obviously, it’s these folks you want to work with Because it is these folks who will have your back in general and… (a)save you from your errors – that is, they will help you learn to avoid oversimplification and will gently correct your wrong words (b)show you what you should appreciate in their field, by helping you to identify the important things (I will come back to this), and (c)appreciate what you/your field have to contribute to them, in return

18. How do you find them? How do you make it work? Sometimes it is luck, sometimes it is trial and error… But always, successful interdisciplinary collaboration requires (at least) three critical ingredients…

19. Critical Ingredient for Successful Interdisciplinary Work #1: Networking You need to reach out, meet, and talk with people. Get them excited about your work, and be excited about theirs. Write your “elevator speech” and get it down to 1 minute or less. Approach people with it, even if you are shy or introverted. Nothing will ever happen unless you start here!! You will get some “no”s, but you will be surprised at how many “yes”es you get too.

20. Critical Ingredient for Successful Interdisciplinary Work #2: Listening and Respecting the Other Perspective Interdisciplinary work is NOT simply superficially scavenging what you think are the best parts of some other discipline’s work. Rather, you must listen carefully to your colleagues, AND you respect what they are saying – even when you can’t really see why they think it matters so much. You will be surprised how often you come to realize why it does, indeed matter You may not always agree. In fact, that is kind of the point. For instance, my behavioral colleagues and I diverge on our beliefs about whether or not internal states/cognition/emotion can or should be included as explanatory mechanisms for observable behavior. For this reason, my colleagues have challenged my conclusions about some of the mechanisms of vocabulary learning that we study together. And I believe I have challenged their thinking to appreciate the potential role of higher order processes (cognition) in these same learning processes.

21. Critical Ingredient for Successful Interdisciplinary Work #3: Take Chances! Make Mistakes! By definition, you can’t do interdisciplinary work if you only work with people within your own discipline. You must therefore reach out to folks who operate with different theoretical frameworks, experimental methods, etc …. which in turn will most likely also take you outside of your comfort zone of training. Sometimes, people within your own discipline – those who prefer the silo approach - will be puzzled about why you are reaching outside of it. For instance, reactions of some folks in the area of developmental/cognitive psychology (my training) to my collaboration with behavior analysts (shudder!) ranged from mildly bemused to outright appalled. And yet, this collaboration is now in its 25 th year, has produced multiple grants and publications, and I would like to think has had an impact on both of our fields. So, interdisciplinary work is not for the faint of heart … but it has a big payoff, in my opinion.

22. Outline A brief overview of my own interdisciplinary career What makes for a good interdisciplinary approach? Grant writing from an interdisciplinary perspective An overview of the NIH system

23. Grant writing from an interdisciplinary perspective (or, the long and tortured journey to funding an interdisciplinary project) In 2004, I began to realize that reaching to neuroscience, specifically visual cognitive neuroscience, might enrich the understanding of communication interventions in my discipline. This is because I work within the area of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), which most often uses visual aides as an integral component of communication. Given that vision is the channel by which aided AAC is presented to users, it seemed reasonable to consider whether information from visual cognitive sciences/neuroscience might be relevant to our practices

24. So I put in a grant application to the NIH in which I sought to explore how information from the area of visual cognitive neuroscience might be used to improve the design of AAC displays However, this initial attempt (and its resubmission) was unsuccessful, to say the least. Grant writing from an interdisciplinary perspective (or, the long and tortured journey to funding an interdisciplinary project)

25. I therefore contacted the program officer at the NIH, who is one person who can sit in the room during the review discussion and can offer insights as to the tone of that review, to solicit information about what might be the problem. This program officer, after some hemming and hawing, finally said, “Well, I am not speaking for the review panel – rather, this is my own opinion – but really….”: …I just think that vision is just too tangential to communication.

26. Stage 1: Disbelief The natural history of a response to a statement like that: What????? But, but, but… it’s a visual communication mode… How is vision tangential to that? Stage 2: Despair Clearly, s/he’s right. This was a terrible idea. What was I thinking? Stage 3: Hold on… But wait a minute, it is a visual communication mode! Stage 4: Persistence If I just reframe it, to be clearer, they’ll see why this is important!

27. So I went back and reframed the proposal, to respond directly and specifically to the concern that “vision is tangential to communication” Now, whenever I talk about it (in presentations) or write about it (in grant proposals or papers) I am sure to address, specifically, the question: Why is knowing how individuals with disabilities extract, process, and respond to visual information important for developing clinically useful interventions? And I do it through the following series of logical assertions in which I: (1)frame the general problem and aim/question; (2)provide justification for why we need to address that aim/question, and (3)identify the gaps in current literature that make us unable, right now, to answer that aim/question

28. AAC is quite effective for many individuals (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2013; Romski & Sevcik, 1996). Yet some individuals continue to struggle, even with educational and clinical support that includes AAC (Culp et al, 1986; Johnson et al., 2006; Phillips & Zhao, 1993). It is these folks that I am interested in understanding better and, on the basis of that knowledge, refining our clinical and educational interventions Specifically, I am curious about how such individuals extract, process, and respond to visual information presented on their AAC systems, in order to better align our clinical interventions with the processing skills of their users. Logical Assertions #1: Framing the General Problem & Aim  Initial evidence-based assertion  Statement of the remaining challenge  Statement of the response to this challenge  Summary of the overarching research aim

29. We know that understanding the principles by which people process sounds is important in order to design the most optimal oral/aural language interventions for children who are learning to speak. That is, knowing how children hear and process sounds helps optimize oral language interventions Logical Assertions #2: Providing the rationale for the research aim

30. That is, knowing how children extract, process, and respond to visual information is necessary to help to optimize visual aided AAC interventions It seems equally important to understand principles of visual, conceptual, and motor processing when putting together a visually-based aided AAC intervention http://www.intechopen.com/books/visual-cortex-current-status- and-perspectives/adaptation-and-neuronal-network-in-visual-cortex

31. Yet there is a gap in our knowledge because… …the fit of the design of AAC displays with the visual or motor processing skills of their users is rarely considered… ….Moreover, aided AAC design is not generally grounded in empirical knowledge about human visual information processing or motor behavior in general….. …and to complicate things, very little is known about this processing in individuals with significant communication limitations associated with intellectual/developmental disabilities. Logical Assertions #3: Identifying the Gaps in Current Knowledge

32. Voila – the elevator speech: A succinct and compelling overview of your research and why it matters, that can be told in the length of an average elevator ride (one to two minutes) and will cause your listener to be nodding their head in wholehearted agreement at the end. Anyone want to time me?

33. Individuals who have severe disabilities often have difficulty using speech to meet all of their communication needs. For many such individuals, we implement visual communication aids, often that have speech output as well – this is called Augmentative and Alternative Communication, or AAC. If you’ve heard of Stephen Hawking, the physicist, he uses a speech output device. AAC is quite effective for many folks, including children with disabilities like autism and Down syndrome. Yet some children continue to struggle, even with these AAC interventions. I believe that in order to better serve these children who are continuing to struggle, we must find out how they process and respond to visual information presented on their AAC systems. This is because we know that understanding how children process sounds helps us design the best possible spoken language interventions. It seems equally important to understand how children process and respond to visual information, if we are to design the best possible visual communication interventions. Yet currently in practice, AAC design is not generally grounded in knowledge about human visual information processing. To complicate things, we know almost nothing about this processing in children with significant disabilities. My studies are designed to learn more about how such children process visual information, and to use that knowledge to refine our clinical and educational interventions.

34. So, did it work? As stinging as the Program Officer’s critique was, it revealed the places where my logic was not sufficiently convincing Through listening to that, and bolstering the logic, I should come up with a more convincing proposal Right?

35. Right! The newest version of that original grant recently received a 4 th percentile score and is now pending final notification of the official Notice of Award – and in the form of a much larger, 5-year project rather than an exploratory 2- year project. There are several points to this story:

36. Explanations are key When you do any work, but particularly interdisciplinary work, one of the challenges will be to convince people within field #1 why the information from the field #2 is important. This is not something that will be naturally obvious to people, as they will typically have been trained only in the one discipline While I was surprised that I would have to do that for this particular (unnamed) program officer, his/her comment was a clear illustration of the way that even fairly sophisticated readers may need to have it spelled out. I took the comment seriously, and as irritating as it was, it helped shape a more effective argument on my part.

37. Persistence, persistence, persistence and support, support, support It can be discouraging to have people pooh-pooh your ideas (or, your entire research program, in the case of the program officer’s comment). But the more you work on responding to that feedback, the better able you will be to develop and articulate a compelling argument. And, the more you have networked (see my earlier suggestion!), the more support you will have to keep on going. I remember emailing my colleague/mentor – that dreaded behavior analyst – and admitting that on some days his faith in my ideas was the only thing that kept me moving forward. And it’s true. You need to find and keep hold of someone who believes in you, for those times when your own belief wobbles.

38. Outline A brief overview of my own interdisciplinary career What makes for a good interdisciplinary approach? Grant writing from an interdisciplinary perspective An overview of the NIH system

39. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/planning_application.htm

40. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/funding_program.htm

41. Penn State has resources available. For instance our Social Sciences Research Institute generally holds workshops each year on different agencies, including NSF, NIH, and IES. http://www.ssri.psu.edu/event/581/ssri-workshop-2-grant-writing-review-process-nih

42. The following slides with peach background are all taken directly from a powerpoint presentation offered by NIH-funded researchers here at Penn State, in 2013.

43. Page Limit Guide: Plan your proposal with these limits in mind Section of ApplicationPage Limits Introduction (for resubmission application only)1 Specific Aims1 Research Approach: R03, R13/U13, R21, R36, R41, R43, Fellowships (F), SC2, SC3 6 Research Approach: R01, single project U01, R10, R15, R18, U18, R33, R24, R34, U34, R42, R44, DP3, G08, G11, G13, UH2, UH3, SC1 12 Biographical Sketch4 Page limits may vary for other funding mechanisms. Check Funding Opportunity Announcement: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/search_results.htm?scope=pa&year=active

44. Receiving the Summary Statements: The Hardest Part! 1.Reviews critical, even harsh 2.Reviewers usually find grant’s weaknesses, while recognizing strengths 3.Summary statements spend much more time on critique than praise 4.Many investigators experience a mixture of rage and depression when they read their summary statements and easily lose perspective 5.Take a day or two (or more!) and then read again with a cooler head

45. Receiving the Summary Statements: Bouncing Back! 1.Ask experienced colleagues to read reviews 2.Don’t interpret criticism as hopeless 3.Program Officer may be helpful in clarifying critique 4.If “discussed” (rather than triaged), you have a chance of funding in next round 5.The lower the initial score, the fewer problems and more likely to be successful after revision

46. 1.Persistence pays off in the grant process!! 2.Second submission must respond to the critiques through revision or clearly defending reasoning 3.Same reviewers may or may not review resubmission, but will see critique Resubmission: Resilience and Flexibility!

47. When to Revise – Basic idea was significant and innovative or these can be bolstered – Design/measurement/analysis problems can be clarified (more information) or fixed – Need preliminary data – Problem is poor writing

48. Addendum: Time and Lab Management Prioritizing activities Year to year Semester to semester Week to week Managing research teams