Opthalmologic Emergencies Dave Dyck R3 Preceptor: Dr. Bryan Young Sept. 26/02.
WCHRI Innovation Grants The Art & Science of Grant Writing Dr. Kathy Hegadoren Dr. Jason Dyck.
-
Upload
leona-george -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of WCHRI Innovation Grants The Art & Science of Grant Writing Dr. Kathy Hegadoren Dr. Jason Dyck.
WCHRI Innovation GrantsThe Art & Science of Grant Writing
Dr. Kathy HegadorenDr. Jason Dyck
• 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
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%
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
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
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 CompetitionProject Relevance with WCHRI Mandate Score
Somewhat relevant to WCHRI mandate 0
Moderately relevant to WCHRI mandate 1
Highly relevant to WCHRI mandate 2
Letters of Collaboration may be included:• should clearly detail collaborator’s role • must be signed by collaborator
WCHRI Innovation Grant Competition
WCHRI Innovation Grant CompetitionScoring:
Review Criteria Previous WCHRI Innovation Grant 2010 - 2013
No Previous WCHRI Innovation Grant
Progress Report 25% 0
Quality of Proposal 50% 75%
Quality of Applicant 15% 15%
Impact / KT 10% 10%
Outstanding 4.5 – 4.9
Excellent 4.0 – 4.4
Very Good 3.5 – 3.9
Good 3.0 – 3.4
Needs Revision 2.5 – 2.9
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
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)
Grantsmanship:the art of acquiring peer-reviewed
research funding
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
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?
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
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?
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
Include the following sectionsBackground - 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
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
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!
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
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
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
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
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
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
We can help!
contact WCHRI at wcgrants.ualberta.ca