Summary statement.

[rivka]

I just got the summary statement for my rejected grant, with critiques from the three reviewers who were responsible for sinking the proposal.

None of them hated it. Pulling out some of the positive statements: "The project is significant... this is an interesting topic, and one of potential significance... the proposal is well writen and organized... the purpose is important... the idea is interesting and potentially innovative... the application has many strong aspects... well-written proposal... the investigators appear to be well qualified to conduct this research... the aims of the study are significant and the study [...] is innovative... the proposed study is well-designed and will likely yield important insights."

Their criticisms: in general, all of them wanted to see a stronger "unifying theoretical framework" for the proposal. Two of them wanted a more detailed discussion of the measures and the data analysis plan. They want more information about the recruitment timeline, including details establishing that the clinic population includes enough of the right kind of patient that I'll be able to make my enrollment target. One of them thought I'd have trouble achieving gender balance without a specific recruitment target, which seems odd to me given that I reported that all of our previous studies have easily recruited a gender-balanced population. And one of them wanted me to focus on patient-provider interactions, not just patient decision-making. That'll be the hardest criticism to address, because it essentially boils down to explaining why I don't want to do an entirely different study from the one I initially proposed.

These critiques are both good news and bad news. They're surprisingly encouraging, given that they resulted in an unscored application; they all seemed to think that it was a good and worthwhile project. So that's good motivation for a resubmission. On the other hand, it's daunting to realize that a project which they all basically liked didn't even make it into the top half. The competition must be very very good indeed.

I've got just about a month to revise and resubmit. Guess I've got to get to work on this "unifying theoretical framework" thing.

Updated to add: My dissertation advisor just told me that his last grant application was unscored. I can't even begin to express how much better that makes me feel.

Comments

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

Interesting.

I think the "unifying theoretical framework" thing is a common "young scholar" thing in grantwriting--my first two grant submissions were rejected (well, unfunded, which amounts to the same thing in practical terms) for the same reason. Even the most recent project, though funded, had a few negative comments in that direction.

Good luck with the revisions! I'm sure you can do it.

-J

[rivka.livejournal.com]

I think the "unifying theoretical framework" thing is a common "young scholar" thing in grantwriting--my first two grant submissions were rejected (well, unfunded, which amounts to the same thing in practical terms) for the same reason.

That's so helpful to hear - thanks. I'm finding it encouraging in general to hear about successful scientists' unfunded grant applications, and it's specifically very helpful to hear a perspective that this might be a developmental problem with my grantwriting, rather than, I don't know, a fundamental personal flaw.

I confess that I'm not even 100% sure what they mean by a "unifying theoretical framework" - whether they want me to structure my proposal in terms of some existing named theoretical model, or whether they want me to use more theory terms and some boxes connected with lines in describing how I think things fit together.

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

In my case, what they meant was both that they wanted me to structure my proposal in terms of some existing named theoretical model (or several of them, and make sure they tie together), and that they wanted me to be absolutely clear about how my work and expected results fit within what is currently known not only empirically, but also theoretically.

-J

[elusis.livejournal.com]

My experience, not with grantwriting but with research proposals, suggests the they want you to structure your proposal in terms of an existing, named theoretical model, a framework from which the research will hang.

[marici.livejournal.com]

My father scores grant applications. He says it he had the resources, he'd usually fund the top 50% to 75% of applications, and that cutting down to the 10% that get funds is amazingly difficult.

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that was definitely my experience the one time I served on a national granting organization's committee.

-J

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

one of them wanted me to focus on patient-provider interactions, not just patient decision-making

That sounds like the famous not-for-us. The others are part of your learning process, and writing-good-grants sounds like a field of study all in itself, but this one sounds like a personal preference. Maybe it makes sense, but you have to investigate that.

Overall, it sounds very positive. Best of luck with the rewrite!

[bosssio.livejournal.com]

you may need to directly address why patient-provider interactions are explicitly NOT focused on, vs. patient decision-making.

It may be obvious to you, but my guess is that when you are asking reviewers to look favorably on your proposal and they are reading a pile of proposals in a short period of time, the more explicit you are in your decisions/approach/methods, the easier it is for them to NOT find an excuse to reject you (esp. in the "we can't fund everyone who deserves to be funded" situation).

all in all, they sound like great comments. they liked the overall concept and premise. And you can work on the rest of it.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

you may need to directly address why patient-provider interactions are explicitly NOT focused on, vs. patient decision-making.

I will definitely need to address that, yeah. For a resubmission, you're required to write a memo responding to reviewer's comments and explaining how you did or didn't make changes. So that will be where I make my respectful little explanation about, you know, not changing topics completely.

You're right, they're great comments overall - in part, because they really spell out what would make the proposal stronger. There was nothing vague about these critiques, and there was nothing that struck at the real foundations of the project. So many of the changes they want me to make are explanatory, rather than actual alterations in the nature of the project.

I even already have some developing ideas about the "theoretical framework" part, which was the thing I was most anxious about when I first read the critiques.

[tassie-gal.livejournal.com]

Minor cosmetic changes really do make it seem less hopeless. As my supervisor says to me "You have the basis there, just tease it out a little more so I can SEE it."