An official website of the United States government
Our project addresses a training gap in preparing emerging researchers for independent research career paths. We piloted and evaluated TRANSPIRE as a theory of change (TOC) model (De Silva et al., 2014). TRANSPIRE was motivated by a reality wherein the postdoc path tends to insufficiently prepare researchers in conceptual skills that ground impactful research careers, how to conceptualize transformative research questions that would frame or motivate their research, or to foreground the potential impacts (scientific &/or societal) of the research when devising a project. TRANSPIRE is based on ideas that a matrix of epistemologies, pragmatics, and values are needed to conceptualize and solve increasingly intractable problems Flyvbjerg (2001). We drew on an Aristotelian idea that places ¬practical wisdom on the same plane as epistemology and technical know-how. Specifically, three theories of learning frame our project: Scaffolding (Vygotsky, 1978), Reflective practice (Alvesson et al., 2017; Schön, 1991), and transdisciplinary learning (Mezirow, 1997). Scaffolding involves both peers and experts guiding learners to progress beyond their current zones of comfort or expertise. Reflective practice helps students focus on both processes/outcomes and the potential societal significance of their work. Transdisciplinary learning opens a space for “reflexive analysis and discussion of values and interests” (p.3), which grounds content in authentic problems–essential for adult learners. The program included short writing assignments, developing research statements for a job application, and writing white papers for a grant proposal. These were discussed in weekly dialogues with their postdoctoral peers, faculty mentors, and the PI/facilitator. Data gathered includes participant observations, recordings of weekly meetings, interviews and focus groups, pre/post surveys, and postdocs’ work products. Our cohorts over two years were small and thus, we employed a qualitative analysis, which integrates inductive category development and directed content analysis. Our poster will describe program specifics and findings about the postdocs’ engagement and learning, perspectives from faculty mentors, and data that supports our proposed Theory of Change. Briefly, most postdocs found the program beneficial and a first experience in reflecting deeply on the transformative potential of research questions. Most gained new understandings of transformative research and felt that the program would help them be more successful as they pursued independent research careers. Some significant challenges identified include a reality wherein postdocs tend to be used more as employees rather than trainees and participating in the program was an add-on to already burdened schedules. Similarly, many postdocs’ supervisors either misunderstood the program’s purpose or felt it would interfere with their postdoc’s responsibilities. The faculty fellows/mentors reported that they gained a great deal from participating in the weekly meetings, noting they now have a far better understanding of what is meant by transformative research and that they learned new mentoring approaches that they intend to bring to mentoring their own students or postdocs. A critical challenge identified is the need for substantive support for such a program by both postdocs’ supervisors and by the institution. Based on our data, we also propose ideas for incorporating aspects of our program in NSF’s mentoring plans.
more »
« less
Biosciences Proposal Bootcamp: Structured peer and faculty feedback improves trainees’ proposals and grantsmanship self-efficacy
Grant writing is an essential skill to develop for academic and other career success but providing individual feedback to large numbers of trainees is challenging. In 2014, we launched the Stanford Biosciences Grant Writing Academy to support graduate students and postdocs in writing research proposals. Its core program is a multi-week Proposal Bootcamp designed to increase the feedback writers receive as they develop and refine their proposals. The Proposal Bootcamp consisted of two-hour weekly meetings that included mini lectures and peer review. Bootcamp participants also attended faculty review workshops to obtain faculty feedback. Postdoctoral trainees were trained and hired as course teaching assistants and facilitated weekly meetings and review workshops. Over the last six years, the annual Bootcamp has provided 525 doctoral students and postdocs with multi-level feedback (peer and faculty). Proposals from Bootcamp participants were almost twice as likely to be funded than proposals from non-Bootcamp trainees. Overall, this structured program provided opportunities for feedback from multiple peer and faculty reviewers, increased the participants’ confidence in developing and submitting research proposals, while accommodating a large number of participants.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1714723
- PAR ID:
- 10281078
- Editor(s):
- Cameron, Carrie
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- PLOS ONE
- Volume:
- 15
- Issue:
- 12
- ISSN:
- 1932-6203
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e0243973
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Measuring the level of institutional capacity for grantsmanship within higher education informs administrators about the needs of their organization and where resources and institutional supports can be implemented to support faculty and staff. Receiving grant funding can lead to implementing cutting-edge programming and research support, which could improve the quality of education provided and, ultimately, student retention. While conducting an institutional capacity needs assessment is crucial for making data-informed decisions, there is a significant gap in institutional capacity research; specifically, there is no valid and reliable assessment tool designed to measure institutional capacity for grantsmanship. The present study aims to develop an assessment tool for higher education institutions to evaluate support systems and identify the needs of their faculty and administrators for grant writing efforts. The current study used a mixed-method approach over three phases to understand the indicators behind measuring institutional capacity for grantsmanship. We developed six reliable scales—promoting grant proposal writing, proposal writing (for faculty), proposal writing (for administrators), proposal writing (all respondents), submitting grant proposals, implementing grant activities, and managing awards. This study contributes to our understanding of institutional capacity and produced a reliable assessment tool to support grantsmanship.more » « less
-
Writing winning proposals for funding research is an essential skill for doctoral students in the social sciences. Still, most anthropology programs lack formal instruction on this, relying instead on informal mentorship. To advance this, we evaluated the Value Proposition framework in teaching anthropology Ph.D. students to write proposals. Our findings from the feedback from students and faculty in the NSF-funded Cultural Anthropology Methods Program (CAMP) offer insights for using this framework to bridge the proposal-writing gap in the training of cultural anthropologists.more » « less
-
Peer review of grant proposals is critical to the National Science Foundation (NSF) funding process for STEM disciplinary and education research. Despite this, scholars receive little training in effective and constructive review of proposals beyond definitions of review criteria and an overview of strategies to avoid bias and communicate clearly. Senior researchers often find that their reviewing skills improve and develop over time, but variations in reviewer starting points can have a negative impact on the value of reviews for their intended audiences of program officers, who make funding recommendations, and principal investigators, who drive the research or want to improve their proposals. Building on the journal review component of the Engineering Education Research Peer Review Training (EER PERT) project, which is designed to develop EER scholars’ peer review skills through mentored reviewing experiences, this paper describes a program designed to provide professional development for proposal reviewing and provides initial evaluation results.more » « less
-
Peer review of grant proposals is critical to the National Science Foundation (NSF) funding process for STEM disciplinary and education research. Despite this, scholars receive little training in effective and constructive review of proposals beyond definitions of review criteria and an overview of strategies to avoid bias and communicate clearly. Senior researchers often find that their reviewing skills improve and develop over time, but variations in reviewer starting points can have a negative impact on the value of reviews for their intended audiences of program officers, who make funding recommendations, and principal investigators, who drive the research or want to improve their proposals. Building on the journal review component of the Engineering Education Research Peer Review Training (EER PERT) project, which is designed to develop EER scholars’ peer review skills through mentored reviewing experiences, this paper describes a program designed to provide professional development for proposal reviewing and provides initial evaluation results.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243973
