Progress 09/01/16 to 08/31/18
Outputs
Target Audience:The previous year's recipients were mainly faculty and staff from various academic and government institutions. The focus areas included 1) food/nutrition science 2) human/animal health 3) food safety and microbiology 4) plant science, bioenergy, and agriculture products. This year, the recipients also included faculty, research scientists, students, extension specialists, and stakeholders from various colleges and universities as well as the private sector. It should also be noted that this year's target audience was focused more on local participants in Delmarva and New England. The focus areas for this year were 1) food science/nutrition/ human health 2) food safety and microbiology 3) food/water/energy nexus & plant 4) bioenergy and agriculture products. The attendees were able to acquire information about successful grant applications components such as the correct way to use a logic model, collaborative partner identification, corrective actions etc. The information from this workshop will be helpful for future grant proposals submissions/resubmissions and will lead to more successful funding in the future. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Through this opportunity, all participants attending in year 1 and 2 took advantage of developing a professional capability for writing and preparing grant proposal at the Conference on Preparing Winning Grants. The event provided attendees with the information of the correct way to structure their grants according to guidelines in RFA, how to contact NPL for questions, what common mistakes to avoid, how to find the right grant opportunity for that year, suggestions for a timeline to follow when preparing a grant, and other helpful tips. Participants were also able to hear from national program leaders, mentors, and panel members in their areas, who added their own expert opinions and network with each other for future collaborations. In addition, participants were able to listen to a good example about how the grant helped the PD in the biotech company develop the product that would impacts stakeholders and effectively contribute to food safety. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?After the conference, individuals from academic and government institutions obtained information from the national program directors and other peer-participants. During this session attendees were given the opportunity to have Q&A and group sessions, as well as receive helpful tips for grant preparations. Participants will take this new knowledge back to their respective institutions and share with their colleagues and collaborators in other institutions. To date, project activities have been summarized and a report submitted to the REEport system last year. At a later date, another survey of the conference will be taken. The results of this new survey and the beneficial information at the conference will be posted on DSU website and other social media, as well as will be disseminated by conventional tools such as pamphlets, brochures, flyers etc. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Impact The goal of this project was to provide an opportunity to principal investigators and other participants among 1860 and 1890 land grant institutions as well as USDA-ARS to gain valuable insight directly from senior faculty, mentors, and the program leaders about grant proposal writing and the criteria that their grant proposals will be evaluated by. Participants will leave the conference equipped with a better understanding of the grant proposal writing process as a whole from beginning to end. Consequently, they will produce higher quality grant proposals that will become funded successfully at a higher rate. In addition, the conference also has an impact on new and junior faculty and post-doctoral researchers to prepare them for grant proposals in the near future by networking and being mentored through the event. Accomplishments 1) Major activities completed The specific objectives of the conference addressed: 1) The program leaders from USDA-NIFA and NSF informed participants of the grant programs and current/future funding opportunities. 2) Mentees were able to interact with a mentor specific to their field of research/interest. The mentors provided useful tips for how to incorporate key components into a grant proposal, how to initiate strong team building for multidisciplinary collaborations, what pitfalls to avoid, etc. Mentors were able to review failed grant proposals and provide feedback on how to improve their proposal for resubmission. Mentees were also able to ask follow up questions. 3) Mentees observed a mock panel with a sample grant proposal and the steps necessary to rank and review grant proposals. Each member of the panel was able to contribute useful information during their review of the grant and their recommendation to fund or not fund the grant. Mentees were able to ask brief questions and received helpful answers from mock panels and program leaders. The mock panelists for the conference included Drs. Jodi Williams, Victor Wyatt, Patricia Millner, Fawzy Hashem and Rohan Tikekar. 4) Several opportunities were available for principal investigators to network and form beneficial relationships for possible future collaborations. It was also strongly encouraged that their collaborations be multi- and inter-disciplinary. 5) In the first year's conference, USDA-NIFA leaders mainly attended and gave guidance to participants. In the second year, two NSF program leaders also attended. During the morning session, participants heard the agency introduction and grant programs from Dr. Cesar Nufio and Dr. Timothy VanReken from NSF and from Dr. Ali Mohamed from USDA-NIFA. 6) Several PIs introduced projects funded from the agency and its success stories through the short speech session. 7) A panel of national program leaders was available to take questions from participants. Panelists also gave helpful pointers to avoid common pitfalls that commonly occur in grant proposals. The panel included Drs. Melvin Carter, Joyce Parker, Mervalin Morant, Rubella Goswami, Ali Mohamed and Jodi Williams. While the activities performed at the first year's conference were also performed at the second year's conference, an additional day was added to the second conference with different activities. Attendees of the second day heard from Joelle Woolston- Laboratory director, Intralytix, Inc. She elucidated on how grants funded their research on bacteriophage product development. Afterward there was an additional mentoring session. Topics discussed include: structure and framework for relationships and identifying collaborative partners, common errors, many objectives, budget problems, panel process misconceptions, corrective actions, collective strategies for success etc. A poster session was organized so that participants could present their research and observe other's research as well. In the afternoon, Dr. Melissa Harrington, Interim Assistant VP for Research at DSU, was the keynote speaker. She spoke on the benefits of an integrated, multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary approach to grant writing. 2) Data collected For a data collection, the PI and Co-PIs will prepare a survey for collecting feedback from the event attendees. The survey will be forwarded to all attendees this fall. Key outcomes or other accomplishments realized Changes in knowledge: With new confidence in developing professional writing skills, participants were able to glean new knowledge of grant proposal writing and a better understanding of guidelines from panels, NPLs, and those who have had grant proposals successfully awarded. Such knowledge was beneficial to the participants as many of them brought previously failed grant proposals and sought feedback as to why they were not funded. Their weaknesses were pointed out and how to strengthen them for resubmission. Furthermore, participants' thinking in regards to the grant proposal submission process and how to more effectively convey their ideas in a grant proposal has been improved. Attendees were also informed about the benefits of multi-disciplinary collaborations as well as importance of team communications. Changes in action: Participants are able to apply new knowledge gained in the conference and a clearer understanding of grant proposal guidelines to not only future grant proposals, but also to failed grant proposals that can be enhanced and resubmitted for successful funding. Because grant applicants' thinking and perspective may have changed for the better, it will change the way they present their ideas in the grant proposals. Also, the participants' attitude about multi-disciplinary collaborations has been improved which will build stronger integrated projects in efficient and effective manners. Changes in condition: Participants will be going back to their perspective universities and will share new information and understanding of guidelines with their colleagues in their home institutions as well as their collaborators in other institutions. Furthermore, the quality of grant proposals submitted from these colleges and universities will greatly improve and the grant proposals successfully awarded will produce better products.
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2018
Citation:
Booklet for Conference on Preparing Winning Grants in 2017 and 2018.
|
Progress 09/01/16 to 08/31/17
Outputs
Target Audience:The recipients of this project were the PD, Co-PDs, faculty, staff, students, and other stakeholders from various academic institutions in areas such as food/nutrition science, human/animal health, food safety and microbiology, plant science, bioenergy, and agricultural products. The scientists attending the workshop were able to gain information about successful grant applications such as collaborative partner identification, structure/framework, proposal evaluation/decision, corrective actions etc. The information from this workshop will be helpful for future grant proposals submissions and will lead especially junior faculty and research staff to eventual funding successfully. In order to develop a dissemination plan on how to deliver new information and knowledge to participants through this event, the PD called the project committee which consisted of the PD, Co-PDs, the CARS Associate Dean of Research, and the USDA-NIFA program leaders. Members of the committee had a biweekly meeting through teleconference, committing their efforts to preparing a winning grant writing conference. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Professional development: The project offered mentorship in specified training that addresses the NIFA priority area, in which participants were able to take an advantage of learning comprehensive spectrum of knowledge and skills to attract external agencies' funds through one-on-one or group activities with mentors. Participants attended the "Delaware State University/USDA-NIFA Food Safety and Nutrition 1st Conference on Preparing Winning Grants". At this workshop, national program leaders were able to inform them of the proper way to submit grants, how to contact NPL for questions, what common mistakes to avoid, and other helpful tips. Participants were also able to hear from panel members in their areas, who added their own expert opinions and network with each other for future collaborations. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?At the conference, individuals from various 1860 and 1890 institutions were able to glean information from the national director's panel. During this session attendees were able to ask questions and receive helpful tips from their experiences as well as their answer to the question. Mentees will take this information back to their respective institutions and share with their colleagues. Results and outcomes have been summarized annually and submitted to the REEport system. Outcomes of this project will be disseminated through a magazine by DSU subcommittees of research and on the DSU College of Agriculture and Related Sciences (CARS) websites. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?A no-cost extension has been requested for further project delivery. DSU CARS has a plan to host another conference/seminar in the coming spring semester. CARS will call the committees members for a meeting. The committee will discuss new ideas and the agenda for new event next year.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Impact The goal of this project was to provide an opportunity to participants among 1860 and 1890 land grant institutions to gain valuable insight directly from successful PDs (mentors & reviewers) and NIFA program leaders on grant proposal writing and the criteria that grant proposals will be evaluated. The project expects that participants, who are especially interested in the grant priority areas of antibiotic resistance & animal health, nutrition, and agricultural sciences, will leave the conference equipped with a better understanding of the grant proposal writing and process as a whole and will produce higher quality grant proposals that will become more capable to be funded. This project also has an impact on new and junior faculty to prepare them for grant proposal in the near future by networking and being mentored through the event. Accomplishments 1) Major activities completed The specific activities and objectives were met for this conference. 1) The winning grant proposal conference committee was composed to establish milestones and administrate the objectives successfully. 2) The PD and Co-PDs communicated with the NIFA program leaders in arranging conference agenda and event place, inviting mentors, etc. 3) Mentees were able to interact with a mentor specific to their field. The mentors provided useful tips for how to incorporate key components into a grant proposal and what pitfalls to avoid. Mentors were able to review failed/draft grant proposals and provide feedback. Mentees were also able to ask follow up questions. 4) Mentees observed a mock panel and the steps necessary to rank and review grant proposals. Each member of the panel was able to contribute useful information. Participants were able to ask brief questions and received helpful answers from mentors and program leaders. 5) Several opportunities for mentoring and poster sessions were available for mentors and mentees to network and form mutually beneficial. 6) Several mentors were able to present success stories of awarded grant proposal by sharing their know-how and key points. Selected participants had opportunities to introduce their visions of program development and research projects during lightening talk's time. 7) In the NPL roundtable panel, national program leaders were available to take questions from participants. Panelists also gave helpful pointers to avoid common pitfalls in grant proposals. 8) The committee requested surveys to mentors and mentees and collected their feedback. Surveys from this event will help with future endeavors. 2) Data collected For a data collection, the PI and Co-PIs will prepare a survey for collecting feedbacks from the event attendees. The survey will be forwarded to all attendees this fall as well as next year after 2nd Conference on Preparing Winning Grants in 2018. All data collected from surveys will be submitted to the final report. Key outcomes or other accomplishments realized Changes in knowledge: Participants were able to glean new knowledge of grant proposal writing and a better understanding of guidelines from reviewers, NPLs, and those who have had grant proposals successfully awarded. Such knowledge was beneficial to the participants as many of them brought no recommendation of grant proposals and were wondering about why the brought proposals were not funded. It was explained to them why their proposals were not competitive and how they could strengthen them for resubmission or new submission. Furthermore, participants' thinking in regards to proposals and how to appropriately convey their ideas in a grant proposal has been improved. Changes in action: Participants will be able to apply new knowledge and a clearer understanding of grant proposal guidelines to not only future grant proposals but also to unsuccessful grant proposals that can be revised and resubmitted according to RFA guidelines accordingly. Because the participants' thinking and perspective has changed, it will change the way they present their ideas, team building, writing skills, and documentations in the grant proposals. Changes in condition: Participants returned to their perspective universities and shared new information and understanding of guidelines with their colleagues. Participants also built more networks and identified partners for further collaborative opportunity through new proposal submission. Furthermore, the quality of grant proposals submitted from these universities will obviously contribute to improving better academic reputation and the grant proposals awarded will support their academic programs, providing multifaceted opportunities in development of research, teaching, and extension.
Publications
|