NIH Grant Writing Boot Camp: Methods for Framing Your Proposal to Create Reviewer Enthusiasm

For more information and to register, visit the SHARP training website. 

BOOT CAMP OVERVIEW

Summer 2019 dates: July 15-16; 9:00am - 5:00pm

There are many grant writing workshops out there, but most just skim the surface of what really matters: the psychology of how your reviewers respond to what you put on the page, and how common mistakes in framing inevitably turn the tide against you.  As researchers, few of us are deeply versed in the skills of framing and reviewer psychology; yet these things determine the fate of our funding - and often our careers. This workshop is unique in that it dives into those things that truly matter, without the fluff like "how to follow instructions of the funder carefully." Whether you are new to grant writing, “thought you knew what you were doing” but aren’t getting the results you want, or simply want to learn some key elements to of being more persuasive in your proposals to become more efficient at writing, this course will teach you the Critical Path to Funding as a vehicle to get you there.   

This two-day intensive workshop will provide a rigorous introduction to the core framing elements that must be present to succeed in NIH grant proposals in our modern, tough environment. This course is led by an experienced team who has been in your shoes ‑ former and current faculty members with exemplary funding track records of their own using these methods, as well as helping others get over $20M funding for R01, R21, DoD, and foundation grants, with at least three perfect-scoring R01's we helped with. The boot camp will integrate seminar lectures with discussion sessions and hands-on activities to clarify core concepts to increase your efficiency and odds of funding. Please note that due to the high demand, individual participant proposals or proposal sections will not be reviewed by instructors - however, there will be a few hot seats to illustrate how the theory meets the practical implementation.

By the end of the workshop, participants will be familiar with the following topics:

• Why certain things we write that seem innocuous may trigger deep, negative responses from reviewers
• How certain frames that we often adopt by default ‑ without knowing we are doing it ‑ can sink your chances
• Why grant proposals require a distinctly different approach than manuscripts ‑ one that most of us haven't been trained for
• How to build (or kill) perceived value of your project with your reviewers
• Why the number one mistake you can make is talking about you and your project too early in the proposal, and why this seems to conflict with advice given elsewhere
• How to stop the cycles of procrastination and write more efficiently
• The precise way to structure your aims to get reviewers excited before it's too late and they are looking for reasons to reject
• Why the use of adjectives like innovative or novel (or many others) will actually have the opposite effect of what you're trying to accomplish with them - and what to do instead
• How to use the Critical Path to Funding as a checklist to assure you have all the components that are necessary for success.
• Why providing more facts and data often has the opposite of the intended effect, and can lead to higher chances of rejection
• Why reviewers often don't (and can't) tell you the real reasons for a rejection - and why if you revise based on a literal interpretation of reviews, your chances of a score improvement are lower than you might like to think
• And much more!

Investigators at all career stages are welcome to attend, and we particularly encourage trainees and early-stage investigators to participate to form a strong basis for funding early on, rather than developing bad habits that have to be changed later.