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