MSc Health Sciences Education
Grant Writing Workshop
June 9, 2015
Presented by Health Research Services
Lisa Hodge, hodgel@mcmaster.ca, x26367
Catherine Gill Pottruff, gillc@mcmaster.ca, x22057
McMaster Research Services Resources
Introduction to Research Services at McMaster
 Health Research Services (HRS) – Faculty of Health Sciences:
– Wendy Hollinshead, Assistant Director, Grants
Catherine Gill Pottruff, Senior Grants Advisor
Michelle Dowling, Senior Grants Advisor
Lisa Hodge, Senior Grants Advisor – CIHR
 Research Office for Administration, Development & Support (ROADS):
– Sherisse Webb, Assistant Director – Development
Pam McIntyre, Senior Advisor – SSHRC contact
Colleen McGrath, Senior Grants Advisor – NSERC contact
Cynthia Belaskie, Senior Grants Advisor – CIHR contact
 McMaster Industry Liaison Office (MILO):
– Gay Yuyitung, Business Development Manager
– Industry-sponsored research contracts & commercialization
Grant Writing & Grant
Proposal Submissions
Presented by Lisa Hodge, HRS
 “Grantsmanship” is not just about the
writing
 Good grant writing takes time, planning,
and direction
 Advice seeking is smart grant planning
Most researchers are great at
science and not so great at
sales – Great grant writers
sell research ideas so that
great scientists can discover
great things!
THREE STEP PROCESS OF GRANT SUBMISSIONS
1. PLANNING:
– Funding Sources – the right fit/the right choices
– Strategies for grant submission planning
– Managing timelines
– Finding/sourcing help – seeking expertise
2. WRITING:
– Follow instructions
– “Arts and crafts” of putting it together
3. SUBMITTING:
– Eligibility
– Sponsor process
– Institutional process
1. PLANNING:
Ideas/Inspiration/Collaboration:
 Know/Define Program of Research (research area/interest)
 Colleagues (Network of Support and Collaborators)
 Sources of Funding – the Right Fit
 Independent research – making your own way
Implementation:
 Develop Strategy for Funding submission(s)
 Manage Timelines
 Seek Advice and Administrative Help
“Doing research is fun;
writing about the research is
not. Despite this, we must
write journal articles because
science communicates
through its journals.”
Paul Silvia
2. WRITING:
THE BASICS:





Follow instructions
Less is more – short and small (4 rules)
Big words can cause big problems
White space counts
The “write” order
Researchers are not automatically good writers, and research
cannot be accomplished without good grant writing.
FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS:
Print a copy of CURRENT competition instructions
Basic:
 Participant requirements
 Eligible research areas
 Format
Strategic:
 Review criteria guides your titles and content
Looking for space: LESS IS MORE!
4 LITTLE RULES
1. OMIT NEEDLESS WORDS
2. USE GOOD, SMALL WORDS
3. CORRECT USE OF ABBREVIATIONS
4. ONE WORD CAN BE ENOUGH
1. OMIT NEEDLESS WORDS:
 Delete very, quite, basically, actually,
virtually, extremely, remarkably,
completely, at all, and so forth.
 Basically, these quite useless words add
virtually nothing at all; like weeds, they'll in
fact actually smother your sentences
completely.
1a. OMIT NEEDLESS WORDS:
 Delete very, quite, basically, actually, virtually,
extremely, remarkably, completely, at all, and
so forth.
 Basically, these quite useless words add
virtually nothing at all; like weeds, they'll in
fact actually smother your sentences
completely.
1b. OMIT NEEDLESS WORDS:
 Delete very, quite, basically, actually, virtually,
extremely, remarkably, completely, at all, and
so forth.
 These words add nothing; like weeds, they'll
smother your sentences.
2. USE GOOD, SMALL WORDS:
Of 110 Stanford undergraduates polled, most admitted to making
their writing more complex to appear smarter.
‘Have you ever changed the words in an academic essay to make
the essay sound more valid or intelligent by using complicated
language?’ 86.4% said yes.
Nearly two-thirds answered yes to: ‘When you write an essay, do
you turn to the thesaurus to choose words that are more complex
to give the impression that the content is more valid or intelligent?’
Oppenheimer Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 20: 139–156 (2006)
2a. USE GOOD, SMALL WORDS:
Original phrase:
The medical community indicates that a program of
downsizing average total daily caloric intake is
maximally efficacious in the field of proactive weightreduction methodologies.
Revised phrase:
Doctors say that the best way to lose weight is to eat
less.
3. ABBREVIATIONS
Less is more (use fewer abbreviations)
Jargon is confusing; abbreviated jargon
is maddening
Get it right – use correct abbreviations
3a. USE FEWER ABBREVIATIONS
 COMPLICATED FORMULAS AND MULTIPLE
ABBREVIATIONS CAN LOSE THE READER
 SCIENTIFIC JARGON CAN MAKE ABBREVIATIONS
IMPOSSIBLE TO FOLLOW
When the flow of the submission is impaired by the
use of jargon or overuse of abbreviations, then the
savings in space is lost in translation.
3b. USE CORRECT ABBREVIATIONS
Time: s, min, h
Centrifugal force: x g (not RPM)
Units: kDa, μM, μm
4. ONE WORD CAN BE ENOUGH
Formulaic Phrases (use 1 word or skip)






for the purpose of (to)
due to the fact that (because)
at this point in time (now)
in the near future (soon)
with regard to (about)
in view of the fact that (because)
BIG WORDS ARE BIG PROBLEMS
Don’t try to use big words in place of small simple
words---less is more
“Many individuals display inaccurate selfassessments of their deficient writing skill
levels….”
("Few people realize how badly they write”)
Paul Silvia
Don’t be one of them
WHITE SPACE COUNTS
Page limitations can leave a grant writer feeling the
need to compress font and reduce headers to
maximize writing space


Condensed font is obvious to reviewers
White space makes reading easier and more
enjoyable for reviewers
 Overuse of underlining or bolding is as bad as no
white space
THE “WRITE” ORDER
 Develop outline (lots of messages to self)
 Develop provisional title
 Results
 References – literature review
 Materials, Subjects, and Methods
 Introduction
 Discussion
 Summary
 Abstract
 Title, keywords and footnotes
3. SUBMITTING:
What you must know WELL before submitting:
 Eligibility rules and restrictions (sponsor specific).
 Institutional Process (facilitates review and approval)
 Sponsor Process
 Contact a Senior Grant Advisor in your faculty research office
for more information.
ELIGIBILITY
 Before you start an application, always check the eligibility
for restrictions or exceptions that determine who can apply
for funding
 Sponsors have different definitions for different types of
applicants and participants
 Guidelines can be more or less restrictive and can be
related to other sources of funding already held
 There are sponsor specific limits to how many applications
can be under review at once
INSTITUTIONAL “PROCESS”
 All proposals for research funding from “applicants” must
obtain institutional approval on behalf of McMaster
University prior to submission.
 A copy of the proposal (including budget), a completed
“Checklist” approval form, and ethics certifications (if
applicable) must be submitted to the appropriate research
office to obtain institutional approval/sign off.
 Contact a Senior Grants Advisor in your faculty research
office for more information about review deadlines and
approval processes.
SPONSOR “PROCESS” & SPECIFICS
Every sponsor is different:
Guidelines for submitting
Platform for online submission (and review)
Timelines and deadlines (LOI and other ‘lingo’)
Where to look to Find Funding?
 Subscribe to funding bulletins
– HRS: hsresadm@mcmaster.ca
– ROADS: contact Research Information Specialist,
Susan Gordon (gordosc@mcmaster.ca)
 Search the COS Pivot database: http://pivot.cos.com/
 Search the major funding agencies websites
 Contact an expert
 for ROADS, contact Research Information Specialist, Susan
Gordon, gordosc@mcmaster.ca)
 For HRS, contact Augusta Beck, becka@mcmaster.ca
Tri-Agency: CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC
 Choosing the correct funding vehicle is the starting point for writing a
grant submission
 Write to the sponsor criteria and mandate

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR): major federal funding agency for
health research to excel, according to internationally accepted standards of scientific
excellence, in the creation of new knowledge and its translation into improved health
for Canadians, more effective health services and products and a strengthened
Canadian health care system.

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC):
supports both basic university research through discovery grants and project
research through partnerships among post-secondary institutions, governments and
the private sector, as well as the advanced training of highly qualified people.

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC):
supports university-based research, research training and knowledge mobilization
activities in the social sciences and humanities.
CIHR Open Operating Grants
CIHR 2015-16
Currently under reform, OOG replaced by Project Scheme
 Project Scheme (similar to old OOG Competition)
 Project competitions occur twice a year in March and September
 Next competition:
Registration due Jan 18, 2016 – Pilot 1
Application due March 1, 2016
 Next Information Session: late November 2015 – info to be posted in
funding opportunities bulletin and HRS website.
 https://www.researchnetrecherchenet.ca/rnr16/vwOpprtntyDtls.do?prog=2237&view=currentOpps&org=CIHR&type=EXAC
T&resultCount=25&sort=program&all=1&masterList=true
Tips:
 Provide a draft for review to the research office by (or
before) the INTERNAL deadline (usually 2 wks before FINAL)
 Success rates appear to be related to “peer review”
 Spell check is not always correct – layman’s review for
grammar and spelling
 Common CV can be a “time-sucker”- keep it up to date
 Resubmissions should not take less effort or time than a new
submission; review and revise early
 Offer peer reviewer comments to research office to assist
with resubmission revisions
REVIEW - again and again









Read the instructions (before, during, after)
Start online application before INTERNAL deadlines
Don’t underestimate time required to complete
Manage timelines of sponsor and research office
Review previous successful applications (contact
your Advisor for help in obtaining these)
Peer review - ask a non-related colleague to review
for content/accuracy/grammar
Use plain/lay language when instructed
Translation and training HQP should be included
Emphasize outcomes and value to Canadians
Budget Suggestions
 Make sure your Budget is realistic
 Consider using at table for lots of data
 Link budget items to aims/objectives in the proposal
(salaries are approximate; use Departmental rates)
Student
Year 1
Year 2
PhD #1
22,000
22,000
Master’s #1
18,000
PhD #2
Master’s #2
18,000
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
22,000
22,000
22,000
18,000
18,000
40,000
40,000
18,000
Master’s #3
Total
40,000
40,000
40,000
Grant Proposal
Submissions
Presented by Catherine Gill Pottruff
Senior Grants Advisor, Health Research Services
 Now that I’ve written it, what do I do with it?
 Why do applications not get funded?
Now That I’ve Written It,
What Do I Do With It?
 McMaster has several Research Offices to
assist you:
– Health Research Services (HRS)
– Research Office for Administration,
Development and Support (ROADS)
– McMaster Industry Liaison Office (MILO)
 We all have similar responsibilities, but
specific areas to support
Health Research Services
 Supports Faculty of Health Sciences only
 Pre-award Services:
 Identification of funding opportunities
 Provision of information sessions
 Assistance with budget development
 Review of grant submissions
 Review for compliance with agency and institutional
guidelines
 Obtaining of institutional signatures
Health Research Services
 Post-Award Services:
 Budget revisions and amendments
 Ensures that researchers and the University are
protected through funding agreements and
compliance with agency and institutional policy
 Processes account requests
 General Contact Information:
 HSC 3H9
 hsresadm@mcmaster.ca
 x 22465
Who Do I Talk To?
Michelle
Dowling
Catherine
Gill Pottruff
Lisa
Hodge
Biochem
Family Med
OBGYN
Oncology
Rehab
Nursing
CE&B (A-K)
Medicine (A-K)
dowlinml@
mcmaster.ca
x 28141
Anesthesia
Pathology
Paediatrics
Psychiatry
Radiology
Surgery
CE&B (L-Z)
Medicine (L-Z)
gillc@
mcmaster.ca
x 22057
CIHR
(all departments)
hodgel@
mcmaster.ca
x 26367
The Others
 ROADS: supports everyone else other than
FHS
 MILO: is involved in intellectual property
and industry/commercialization support
I Need Help, FAST!
 Our HRS internal deadlines are generally
two weeks prior to the agency deadline
 The more information we have, and the
earlier we get it, the better we can help you
Submitting an Application to HRS for
Review and Institutional Signatures
 Your application should be fairly close to
final
 Provide all the documents:
 HRS Checklist, signed by PI/Supervisor and Chair
 Application Form
 Proposal
 Budget
 Budget Justification
 If the application requires signatures, make
sure you get Department sign-off first
HRS Checklist
A Couple of Hints About Budgets
 Read the agency guidelines carefully to see
what they consider eligible
 Some agencies allow overhead; if they do,
put in the maximum allowed
 Staffing: Don’t forget fringe benefits on top
of staff salaries
 Trainee Stipends: Generally fringe benefits
are not allowed on Master’s/PhD candidate
or CIHR PDF stipends
What Does HRS Do With My Application?
 Review thoroughly for content and style, as
well as from the institutional point of view,
and provide back comments, suggestions
and reminders about agency guidelines
 Obtain an institutional signature for you,
usually Dr Stephen Collins, FHS Associate
Dean of Research
 Enter your proposal into MOSAIC
My Application Has Been Funded!
Now What Happens?
 Some scholarships/fellowships are handled
through Grad Studies, some through HRS
 Operating funds for FHS researchers
almost always come through HRS
 Trainees cannot hold funding in their own
names, it must be held by the supervisor
 The exception is Tri-Council funding (CIHR/
NSERC/SSHRC) with a research allowance
What Do I Need To Give HRS For An
Account?





HRS checklist
Award Letter
Signed Acceptance, if required by agency
Final Application/Proposal/Budget
Revised Budget, if the award amount is
different from what you asked for
 Ethics Approvals
A Quick Note About Ethics
 There are several ethics/approval boards here:
– HIREB, AREB, MREB, Biohazard, Health Physics
 When preparing your application, make sure
you’ve got the right board and the most recent
forms (check their websites)
 Do you need a new full application or is your
project an amendment of your supervisor’s?
 Biohazard – make sure you have the funded
project added to your supervisor’s BUP
What Does HRS Do With My Award?
 Review it for completeness, ensuring we
have all the information we need
 Process the account opening request
 Hand it over to Health Sciences Finance to
activate the account
 HSF works with the PI and Department
Finance staff to manage the account for the
life of the grant
 PI is responsible for any required reporting
Why Do Applications Not Get Funded?
 A grant application is a sales document; you
need to persuade the reviewers that your
idea is worthwhile and deserves funding
 Common Errors
Technical
Overoptimism
Budget
Evaluation Plan
“So What?”
Technical Errors
ISSUES
 Your proposal
doesn’t match the
agency’s interest
 You didn’t follow
directions
 It’s poorly written,
crammed together
with typos and
jargon
AVOID BY
 Research the
opportunity before
you start
 Double check the
eligibility and format
guidelines
 Find a proof reader
Overoptimistic Proposal
ISSUES
 Too many objectives to
meet in the time or
funding available
 Assumption that all
experiments will yield
expected results
 Overestimation of
potential participants
 New and untried
procedures
AVOID BY
 Limit objectives to 2-4
max
 Have a backup plan
 Show you have an
adequate patient
population base
 Pilot studies for
feasibility and training
Budget Woes
ISSUES
 Ask is for too much or
too little
 Obvious budget
padding
 Inadequate staffing or
use of personnel
 US/European vs
Canadian funds
AVOID BY
 Be realistic
 Get quotes for services
or purchases
 Protocol-driven expenses
vs standard of care
 Standard institutional
salaries/fringe benefits
 Appropriate use of
personnel
 Exchange rate
Inadequate Evaluation / Training Plans
ISSUES
 Data analysis section is
short, vague or
unfinished
 Planned tests are
inadequate or
inappropriate
 Knowledge translation
is not mentioned
 Inclusion of trainees is
crucial for CIHR
AVOID BY
 Consult with a
statistician in the
planning phase
 Think outside the box
for knowledge
translation
 Send HQP trainees to
conferences
“So What?”
 The art of grantsmanship is in convincing
your reviewers why this particular project is
deserving of funding, over all the other
ones in the competition
The Big Picture
 Your reviewers may be in your field but
likely are not experts in your specialty
 Tell them why you want to investigate your
aims, why it’s important and what impact it
will have
 Make sure the science is sound, feasible
and complete
 Make sure you prove you can get the
results in the time and funding allotted
It’s Not The End of The World
If You Aren’t Funded (This Time)
 In the last CIHR Operating Grant
Competition, the Canada-wide success rate
was about 14%
 Use the reviewers’ comments to improve your
next submission
 You will learn something new with every
application
“You have to have a thick skin, and
remember that it’s very uncommon to be
successful on a first try for funding; you
have to be able to bounce back, take the
criticism, implement it and keep trying –
a combination of hard work,
dedication and stubbornness!”
Dr Rich Whitlock
Cardiac Surgeon