1. WCHRI Innovation Grants The Art & Science of Grant Writing Dr. Kathy Hegadoren Dr. Jason Dyck

2. provides $50,000 in operating funds (over 24 months) to projects that will lead to improved health outcomes for women and/or children 2 application streams separate committees assess each application stream WCHRI Innovation Grant Competition

3. What determines your fundability... before you even apply Not all funders are created equal...... but all are subject to economic pressure and difficult funding decisions CIHR: funding rates for open operating grants ~11% AIHS: Program Grant: LOI phase ~5% final grants ~30% Team Grant: LOI phase ~8% final grants ~21% WCHRI: Innovation grants: ~30%

4. Project Grants: biomedical research theme quantitative Patient/Community Health Grants: align with health systems services, clinical, or social, cultural, environmental and population health research themes qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods

5. Applicant: must be WCHRI member must hold a faculty appointment at the UofA may submit one application to each stream if successful cannot apply following year to the same stream WCHRI Innovation Grant Competition

6. Must be: relevant to WCHRI vision DIRECTLY related to women and/or children’s health see application and guidelines for more information WCHRI Innovation Grant Competition Project Relevance with WCHRI MandateScore Somewhat relevant to WCHRI mandate0 Moderately relevant to WCHRI mandate1 Highly relevant to WCHRI mandate2

7. Letters of Collaboration may be included: should clearly detail collaborator’s role must be signed by collaborator WCHRI Innovation Grant Competition

8. WCHRI Innovation Grant Competition Scoring: Review CriteriaPrevious WCHRI Innovation Grant 2010 - 2013 No Previous WCHRI Innovation Grant Progress Report25%0 Quality of Proposal50%75% Quality of Applicant15% Impact / KT10% Outstanding4.5 – 4.9 Excellent4.0 – 4.4 Very Good3.5 – 3.9 Good3.0 – 3.4 Needs Revision2.5 – 2.9

9. If applicant has held a WCHRI Innovation grant previously: must submit a progress report on the outcomes of that funding include impact, publications, conferences progress report is worth 25% of final score

10. Knowledge Translation activities and plan are worth 10% of total score: Include a K/T plan that details the anticipated outcomes and impact include details on knowledge users, how they will be involved in study or K/T process Include next steps (future grant applications, preclinical or clinical development, impacts on health policy)

11. Grantsmanship: the art of acquiring peer-reviewed research funding

12.  the peer review process The quality of science of applications in the 10% below the cut-off for funding is not significantly different from that in the 10% just above the cut-off. "Grantsmanship" can make the difference

13. Eight Basic Questions Reviewers Ask How high are the intellectual quality and merit of the study? What is its potential impact? How novel is the proposal? If not novel, to what extent does potential impact overcome this lack? Is the research likely to produce new data and concepts? Is the hypothesis/research question valid? Are the aims logical and feasible? Are the procedures appropriate, adequate, and feasible? Are the investigators qualified? Do they have appropriate expertise, credentials and experience? Are the facilities adequate and the environment conducive to the research?

14.  planning tips  start early, even before the call for applications  give them what they want  follow the application guidelines exactly  be explicit and specific  be realistic in designing the project and the budget  make explicit connections between your research questions and objectives, your objectives and methods, your methods and results, and your results and dissemination plan

15.  writing the research proposal what are you going to do? why do you want to do it? how are you going to do it? can it be done?

16.  monitoring timelines start early discuss your ideas – think about others you may need to strengthen the proposal formulate your hypothesis/research question review the literature write a first draft of your research proposal get feedback from colleagues, mentors, relevant stakeholders edit, rewrite, revise put together a preliminary budget ask someone else to proof-read your final application get all required documents: letters, CV get signatures

17.  writing the research proposal what is the topic? Why is this topic important? what relevance do your research questions have for the field? what are your hypotheses/research questions? what are your research methods? why is your research/project important? Significant? Novel? Potential / immediate / future application(s)? do you plan on using quantitative methods? qualitative methods? Mixed methods? have you discussed with an expert? will you be undertaking experimental research? clinical research? Community?

18.  writing the research proposal state explicitly how the proposal relates to the mission, objectives and priorities of the agency (in this case, WCHRI) CLARITY, CLARITY, CLARITY

19.  Include the following sections Background - about 1/3 of proposal: statement of the problem/focus (one/two sentences) background and significance: current state of knowledge, and gaps short and long-term objectives hypothesis/research questions progress / preliminary studies if possible

20.  Include the following sections Proposal itself - 2/3 of proposal: research design and methods characterize sample (cells or people) data analysis clearly describe the role of all team members timetable strengths and weaknesses

21. Draft Proposal – a hard look at your draft Is your proposal hypothesis driven or have a research question? Are your specific aims clearly defined? (stay away from fuzzy, underdeveloped aims and address potential pitfalls) Do you have preliminary data? Show it! Is your research cutting edge? Is the proposal easy to read and well-organized? consider the audience you are writing for!

22. Budget make sure the budget is well documented, realistic, appropriate and justified do not inflate, over-budget, or under-budget do not request items that are not allowed for equipment, document why the piece is essential make sure any requests for personnel are allowed for travel, if allowed, specify who will travel and if they will be presenting a paper

23. Specific Budget Issues Include: costs for transcription costs for putting data into HDRD repository costs for data management software (NVIVO or Atlas.ti) costs for gift cards, child care costs for parking and transportation costs for refreshments for focus groups or meetings with stakeholders

24.  common mistakes and how to avoid them missing critical information or signatures inappropriate format (size, spacing, margins) number of pages exceeding that allowed application does not "fit" with the mission of the agency missing sections poorly written applicant is not eligible extra (not requested) information is included

25.  common mistakes and how to avoid them proposal is overly ambitious, not realistic or feasible no clearly defined priorities literature review is uncritical or poorly written budget is unrealistic (IF relevant to research approach): no clear demonstration of how patient/community stakeholders were consulted and/or will be engaged and with what purpose

26. Lay Abstract first thing that the committee sees written without jargon so that lay audience can easily understand the importance of the research should be polished and an accurate reflection of the proposal should be written with the same care as the proposal used by WCHRI as promotional material and for stakeholders WCHRI Innovation Grant Competition

27. Abstract – do the abstract last after proposal  summary of the research proposal  Introduction: In one sentence, what’s the topic?  state the problem you will tackle  how will you tackle the research question?  describe methodology briefly  what will be the key impact(s) of your research?  should be polished and an accurate reflection of the proposal  should be written with the same care as the proposal WCHRI Innovation Grant Competition

28. What determines your fundability... you Closing Comments The process of applying for grants is a learned process; even the very best applicants suffer rejection. A great proposal takes time to write, re-write and amend Learn from the review process and ask questions. Read through your feedback. Discuss it with your peers and mentors Ask funder for clarification if necessary You have some very good resources at this university – start with your colleagues, supervisor or mentor

29. We can help! contact WCHRI at wcgrants.ualberta.ca