When learning about best practices for grant writing, you will often hear that you need to ease reviewer fatigue. But what does this actually mean? Think about how you feel after reading 20 student papers. Some are great and make it easy to award points; others make it very, very challenging. Perhaps those challenging papers are so poorly organized or presented that you cannot find the key talking points. Maybe critical components are missing altogether, or the student may have tried to fill the required pages with overly complicated words and long sentences.

When developing objective statements for your proposal, it’s important to think SMART. If you haven’t heard of SMART goal statements, the concept was originally published by George Doran in his 1981 article in Management Review. His concept provided managers with a way to “frame a statement of results to be achieved” by writing objectives that provide a clear, effective plan. The SMART framework translates very well to writing research objectives in your grant proposal.

There are many names for the document that informs applicants how to apply for specific funding opportunities: Request for Proposals (RFP), Request for Applications (RFA), Notice of Funding Opportunities (NOFO), Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), and Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), are just a few. Regardless of what the agency calls it, this document will be critical to your grant writing process. 

We often think about grant writing as a means to secure funding for a specific research project, but there are other types of funding that can be useful during your career, including training grants, fellowships, equipment grants, and conference grants. 

Reviewers typically do not want to read pages and pages of solid text. Visuals like graphical summaries, timelines, and flow charts can be great tools to draw a reader's attention, demonstrate your project vision, and provide a much-needed visual break in the text. If you’re thinking of creating a graphic for your next grant proposal, here are some tips to get you started. 

One of the hardest things about being a subject-matter expert is breaking down your specialty topic for non-experts. As an expert, the connections between the what, why, and how of your research seem obvious, but for non-expert audiences, you need to connect the dots between these key elements. This is particularly important in grant writing when you are tasked with convincing reviewers, who may be from any field, of the value of your project and research plan. So, how do you do this? Read on for some suggestions. 

You’ve spent countless hours, days, and months working on your proposal. You’ve brainstormed with colleagues, had peers provide feedback, and sought help from your institution’s Office of Research proposal development team (PLUG: At UCD, that's us — UC Davis Proposal Development Services!). Your grant is nearly done, and it’s time for the last spit and polish prior to clicking "send." Before you do, review three of our key finishing tips! 

You want to write a grant but are not sure where to begin. Or you have ideas but need help narrowing them down and developing them into a project plan. If either is true for you, read on for steps to take towards building your next proposal. 

During his tenure as director of DARPA, George Heilmeier developed a set of questions to help reviewers evaluate proposed research—criteria that get at the heart of what a strong grant proposal should address. Today, the “Heilmeier Catechism" is integrated into review criteria for most other funding agencies. So, be sure to address each of these eight questions in your next grant proposal!

Not including an evaluation plan is one of the most common mistakes that people make in grant writing. Regardless of whether your funding solicitation requires a separate section for the plan or not, you will need to include some type of assessment strategy in your proposal. What is an evaluation plan, and how is it used? Read on to learn what assessments are and why they're critical in your grant! 

The two most common types of evaluation are formative and summative assessments.