Recognise that NHMRC grants are very competitive - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 19
About This Presentation
Title:

Recognise that NHMRC grants are very competitive

Description:

Recognise that NHMRC grants are very competitive! Grants - quotable quotes. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:32
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 20
Provided by: mro125
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Recognise that NHMRC grants are very competitive


1
Recognise that NHMRC grants are very competitive!
2
Grants - quotable quotes
  • Success is how high you bounce when you hit
    bottom. -- General George Patton
  • Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but
    in rising every time we fall. -- Confucius
  • You lose with potential. You win with
    performance. -- Bill Parcels
  • Obsession does not guarantee success. But, on the
    other hand, a lack of obsession does guarantee
    failure. -- Tom Peters

3
Thoughts
  • Before Writing
  • Read and understand funding agency
    announcements/instructions
  • Consider departmental and institutional
    regulations
  • Know the specific aims, approximate costs, and
    necessary preliminary data for the proposal

4
Recognise Assessment criteria
  • Innovation/novelty
  • International competitiveness
  • Approach
  • Feasibility
  • Track Record

5
WOW Factor
  • Remember
  • SIMPLE and STRAIGHTFORWARD is not boring.
  • BORING is boring!

6
Grant applications
  • Dont make committee think
  • Put relevant information where it is expected to
    be found
  • Be kind to the Assessors (Charts, Tables,
    Headings)
  • Assessors are never right and never wrong

7
Why?
  • Problem Statement
  • Scientific Significance
  • Related Research
  • Preliminary Studies

8
Why Common Mistakes
  • Statement or Purpose Unclear/Diffuse
  • Limited Significance/Insufficient Importance
  • Scope Overly Complex or Ambitious

9
What
  • Hypothesis
  • Research Question
  • Objectives

10
What Common Mistakes
  • Poor Fit with Problem Statement
  • Objective/Research Question Unclear
  • Poorly Presented/Too Vague
  • Not Testable
  • Poor Fit with Methods Section/Not Predictive

11
How?
  • Methodology
  • Population/Sample
  • Design
  • Instrumentation/Data Collection
  • Analysis
  • Work Plan

12
How Common Mistakes
  • Inadequate Analysis
  • Inadequate Evaluation
  • Potential Pitfalls not Addressed
  • Unrealistic Time Schedule
  • Responsibilities/Duties Unclear

13
How Much?
  • Full Cost Budget
  • Realistic
  • Justified

14
Have others review before submission
  • Those in your field
  • Someone to look at the Guidelines
  • Someone who knows nothing about what you do

15
Conclude 1
  • Be Nice to Your Assessors
  • Your proposal should
  • Be informative, succinct, and logical
  • Emphasize and re-emphasize the important points
    in your argument
  • Use fonts, headings, and spacing that improve
    readability
  • Not hide important information in the Appendix
  • Contain the kinds of buzzwords, phrases and
    arguments that the reviewer will want to see

16
Conclude 2
  • Think
  • Outline
  • Seek advice
  • Identify funding source(s)
  • Rethink
  • Prepare a draft budget
  • Discuss plan
  • Write
  • Revise
  • Begin internal paperwork
  • Ask colleagues to review draft
  • Revise
  • Finalize budget (with administrator
    checking)
  • Solicit final review by colleagues
  • Revise
  • Submit for internal sign-off
  • Proofread
  • Revise
  • Package

17
Possible reasons for why Proposals Don't Get
Funded
  • Guidelines are ignored
  • Importance of the project is unclear
  • Hypotheses are not supported by literature and/or
    preliminary data
  • Project is technology-driven rather than
    hypothesis-driven
  • Required personnel and expertise not assembled
  • Experimental plan is unfocused and hard to
    understand
  • Experiments do not include all relevant controls
  • Potential obstacles and alternate approaches are
    not discussed
  • Application is trying to do too much in time
  • Problems with methods and data analysis
  • Work load, budget and/or time-frame unrealistic
  • Weak conceptual framework
  • Inappropriate acknowledgement of previously
    published research
  • Investigators and/or consultants named in
    research narrative but not listed on budget or
    "Key Personnel" page
  • Application lacks detail (vague) or is so dense
    message is not obvious
  • Institutional resources are insufficient
  • Insufficient investigator time allocation

18
Did you . . . . ?
  • Receive (and read) comments from colleagues?
  • Adhere like epoxy glue to all of the funder's
    guidelines?
  • Proofread for errors in both narrative and
    budget?
  • Have someone with a fresh eye also proofread?
  • Write an abstract that agrees with the rest of
    the proposal?
  • Obtain all the necessary approvals?

19
Acknowledgements
  • Those who have given their thoughts on how to be
    successful in gaining funding (Mike Waters, David
    Gotley, Bill Schweri, UQ ORPS)
  • The NHMRC for the experiences in applying,
    assessing giving us a chance to have a go.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com