Academic Grant Pursuits newsletter - February 2029
ShalinHaiJew
12 views
24 slides
Oct 29, 2025
Slide 1 of 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
About This Presentation
This issue contains the following articles:
• Aligning with What Grant Funders Value
• You are at 0% Completion
• The Great Wind Down
• Testing the (Grant) Waters
• Grant-Seeking Authorities
• Legacy of a Former Grant Writer
• Being Sporting in the Grants Space
• Controlling for ...
Slide Content
1
ACADEMIC GRANT PURSUITS
February 2029
Aligning with What Grant Funders Value
In this issue:
• Aligning with What
Grant Funders Value
• You are at 0%
Completion
• The Great Wind
Down
• Testing the (Grant)
Waters
• Grant-Seeking
Authorities
• Legacy of a Former
Grant Writer
• Being Sporting in
the Grants Space
• Controlling for
Costs in a Grant
Application Budget
Proposal
• Grant Application
Prims
• Pursuing Multiple
Funding
Opportunities with
Orthogonal Projects
• Feasible Big Ideas
• Wherewithal to
Respond to Critique
• No Director’s Cut
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Editor
Dr. Shalin Hai-Jew,
Grant Writer
[email protected]
(cont. on the next page)
To be competitive for particular grant funds, a grant applicant has to offer something of value. That
“something of value” is defined by the grant funder in their grant documentation, including the no-
tice of funding opportunity (NOFO). (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Grant NOFO
Grant NOFOs define the grant fun-
ders’ goals and objectives, what
they are aiming for. (Figure 2) They
also define the terms of the grant
funding, the min-max ranges, the
action period of the grant, and other
necessary information.
ACADEMIC GRANT PURSUITS
February 2029
Aligning with What Grant Funders Value
In this issue:
• Aligning with What
Grant Funders Value
• You are at 0%
Completion
• The Great Wind
Down
• Testing the (Grant)
Waters
• Grant-Seeking
Authorities
• Legacy of a Former
Grant Writer
• Being Sporting in
the Grants Space
• Controlling for
Costs in a Grant
Application Budget
Proposal
• Grant Application
Prims
• Pursuing Multiple
Funding
Opportunities with
Orthogonal Projects
• Feasible Big Ideas
• Wherewithal to
Respond to Critique
• No Director’s Cut
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Editor
Dr. Shalin Hai-Jew,
Grant Writer
[email protected]
(cont. on the next page)
To be competitive for particular grant funds, a grant applicant has to offer something of value. That
“something of value” is defined by the grant funder in their grant documentation, including the no-
tice of funding opportunity (NOFO). (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Grant NOFO
Grant NOFOs define the grant fun-
ders’ goals and objectives, what
they are aiming for. (Figure 2) They
also define the terms of the grant
funding, the min-max ranges, the
action period of the grant, and other
necessary information.
2
(cont. on the next page)
(What Grant Funders Value...cont.)
Figure 2. Objectives
A grant application is a nonfiction piece of technical writing
that is used to make the case that the grant applicant team
can solve an important problem for the grant funder based
on their local capabilities, their local staff, their vision, their
innovations, their equipment, their facilities, their research
chops, and the like. The grant application has to speak to
the concerns of the grant funder in a framework that the
grant funder understands, with the terminology that the grant
funder uses, and in alignment with their stated (and prac-
ticed) focuses and values. The grant application has to be
compelling to the grant funder (and their grants manager,
the grant evaluators, etc.).
Understanding what a grant funder val-
ues
Knowing what a grant funder (organization, entity, individual)
values requires a close reading of how they represent what
is worthwhile. (Figure 3)
Figure 3. Value = ?
This means reading the grant NOFO closely. In terms of
formal documentation, their annual reports and strategic
plans may be explored. For more timely information, their
public communications and social media presence may be
studied (not only manually but computationally, using
CAQDAS and other tools). Foundationally, their “mission,
vision, and values statements” may be studied. It is im-
portant to study their public actions, their past funded pro-
jects, and other forms of “costly signaling,” with the idea that
behaviors and investments speak louder than words in many
cases. Their leadership also embody what the organization
values (and / or they set the tone for the organization that
they lead). Third-parties may also offer insights about the
target organization.
(cont. on the next page)
(What Grant Funders Value...cont.)
Figure 2. Objectives
A grant application is a nonfiction piece of technical writing
that is used to make the case that the grant applicant team
can solve an important problem for the grant funder based
on their local capabilities, their local staff, their vision, their
innovations, their equipment, their facilities, their research
chops, and the like. The grant application has to speak to
the concerns of the grant funder in a framework that the
grant funder understands, with the terminology that the grant
funder uses, and in alignment with their stated (and prac-
ticed) focuses and values. The grant application has to be
compelling to the grant funder (and their grants manager,
the grant evaluators, etc.).
Understanding what a grant funder val-
ues
Knowing what a grant funder (organization, entity, individual)
values requires a close reading of how they represent what
is worthwhile. (Figure 3)
Figure 3. Value = ?
This means reading the grant NOFO closely. In terms of
formal documentation, their annual reports and strategic
plans may be explored. For more timely information, their
public communications and social media presence may be
studied (not only manually but computationally, using
CAQDAS and other tools). Foundationally, their “mission,
vision, and values statements” may be studied. It is im-
portant to study their public actions, their past funded pro-
jects, and other forms of “costly signaling,” with the idea that
behaviors and investments speak louder than words in many
cases. Their leadership also embody what the organization
values (and / or they set the tone for the organization that
they lead). Third-parties may also offer insights about the
target organization.
3
(What Grant Funders Value...cont.)
Ensuring true alignment
In making the case for funding, the core elements of the grant
have to align with what the grant funder values. The five core
elements of a grant (as identified by the author) include the
following:
• The work proposal (and inherent value proposition)
• The work scheduling in alignment with the grant’s action
period
• The staffing
• The budget
• The program / project evaluation plan
Indeed, grant applications often require more than the core
elements, and those should be provided as well.
The work has to deliver progress in the way that the grant
funder wants. In a logic model, what sort of outputs does the
grant funder want? What sort of ultimate outcomes (end
states)? How do they want the progress measured empirical-
ly? What sorts of research do they prefer (that the local or-
ganization can actualize)? If they want a transferable model,
too, how can that be created and operationalized in the pro-
posed work?
Are there ways to show that the applicant organization aligns
with the funding organization’s worldview? Their ideology?
(These may be extracted from the profiling of the organiza-
tion, its leadership, and its grant funding program.)
If the grant is about workforce development, what knowledge,
skills, and abilities / attitudes do they want developed? What
job creation? What job features and pay scales? What in-
dustries does the funder want to advance? What problem
does it want solved in the professions?
If the grant is about a museum exhibit, how can success be
measured? How can the case be made that new ground is
being covered? Perhaps there are not only the physical arti-
facts but digital ones. Perhaps there are invited speakers to
highlight aspects of the topic being covered. Perhaps there
are the counts of visitors and the capture of their demograph-
ic information. Perhaps there is a compelling sustainability
plan with digital archival of the exhibit into perpetuity. Per-
haps there is an inclusiveness element by making the exhibit
multilingual. Perhaps there is inclusiveness of K12 with sup-
port for local curriculum.
Conclusion
A grant application should not just leave the grant funder
admiring the writing and documentation. It should ensure
that they feel an interest in actually funding the work. It
should raise their curiosity about how the work plan might
instantiate in the real. (Figure 4)
Figure 4. Enthusiasms
(What Grant Funders Value...cont.)
Ensuring true alignment
In making the case for funding, the core elements of the grant
have to align with what the grant funder values. The five core
elements of a grant (as identified by the author) include the
following:
• The work proposal (and inherent value proposition)
• The work scheduling in alignment with the grant’s action
period
• The staffing
• The budget
• The program / project evaluation plan
Indeed, grant applications often require more than the core
elements, and those should be provided as well.
The work has to deliver progress in the way that the grant
funder wants. In a logic model, what sort of outputs does the
grant funder want? What sort of ultimate outcomes (end
states)? How do they want the progress measured empirical-
ly? What sorts of research do they prefer (that the local or-
ganization can actualize)? If they want a transferable model,
too, how can that be created and operationalized in the pro-
posed work?
Are there ways to show that the applicant organization aligns
with the funding organization’s worldview? Their ideology?
(These may be extracted from the profiling of the organiza-
tion, its leadership, and its grant funding program.)
If the grant is about workforce development, what knowledge,
skills, and abilities / attitudes do they want developed? What
job creation? What job features and pay scales? What in-
dustries does the funder want to advance? What problem
does it want solved in the professions?
If the grant is about a museum exhibit, how can success be
measured? How can the case be made that new ground is
being covered? Perhaps there are not only the physical arti-
facts but digital ones. Perhaps there are invited speakers to
highlight aspects of the topic being covered. Perhaps there
are the counts of visitors and the capture of their demograph-
ic information. Perhaps there is a compelling sustainability
plan with digital archival of the exhibit into perpetuity. Per-
haps there is an inclusiveness element by making the exhibit
multilingual. Perhaps there is inclusiveness of K12 with sup-
port for local curriculum.
Conclusion
A grant application should not just leave the grant funder
admiring the writing and documentation. It should ensure
that they feel an interest in actually funding the work. It
should raise their curiosity about how the work plan might
instantiate in the real. (Figure 4)
Figure 4. Enthusiasms
4
You are at 0% Completion
By Shalin Hai-Jew
forms, letters of support, historical documents, and oth-
ers)
12. Acquire on-campus approvals and signoffs up the chain
13. Submit the grant application to the grant funder
The progress above reads as linear, but it is not. It is recur-
sive, with some moving both forwards and backwards as new
progress is made and new information acquired. The concep-
tualization of the proposed work design may evolve, for exam-
ple.
In terms of work pacing, that will depend on the hard dead-
lines (and the soft ones). There is pacing to the calendar.
The work tends to happen in a kind of “punctuated equilibri-
um” with some periods of intensification. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Eleven Percent Progress Circle
Conclusion
A grant application has to be competitive to be considered for
funding. So the work is not only about getting to “done” but
“done” and “to quality standards.” (Figure 2)
Figure 2. One Hundred Percent Progress Circle
Effective grant-seeking teams have a sense of where
they’re at in terms of work progress.
By contrast, those which are less savvy tend to jump right
to fantasy. They act as if they have made progress when
they are only at the initial ideation phase. In their minds,
they are already spending the grant funds when they have
done nothing towards acquiring that funding. Surprisingly,
this going to the imagination is not unusual. Perhaps
some believe if they speak something “to the universe”
that it will magically occur or that someone else has mys-
teriously been delegated to do the work on their behalf.
Perhaps prior passivity forms a path dependency that
leads to more future passivity. Then it’s a mental game of
“woulda coulda shoulda.”
Practical ways of marking actual pro-
gress
One helpful way of marking actual progress towards
grants pursuit is to mark particular necessary points-of-
progress. The desired end point is to get a particular grant
application written, approved, and out to compete with the
grant funder. The goal is to be in the top 10% of grant
applications…so as to be at least somewhat competitive.
The following steps may be objectively observable:
1. Identify a grant funding opportunity (such as through a
grant NOFO)
2. Read the NOFO and all related materials
3. Decide to pursue the grant funding
4. Conceptualize a work proposal / work design
5. Conduct relevant research for the grant proposal,
collect relevant data
6. Schedule the work based on the grant funder’s action
period
7. Staff the work and acquire agreements for team work
8. Work out a reasonable budget for the planned work
9. Design a practical program / project evaluation plan
10. Draft the grant application thoroughly
11. Collect all necessary support documentation (tax
You are at 0% Completion
By Shalin Hai-Jew
forms, letters of support, historical documents, and oth-
ers)
12. Acquire on-campus approvals and signoffs up the chain
13. Submit the grant application to the grant funder
The progress above reads as linear, but it is not. It is recur-
sive, with some moving both forwards and backwards as new
progress is made and new information acquired. The concep-
tualization of the proposed work design may evolve, for exam-
ple.
In terms of work pacing, that will depend on the hard dead-
lines (and the soft ones). There is pacing to the calendar.
The work tends to happen in a kind of “punctuated equilibri-
um” with some periods of intensification. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Eleven Percent Progress Circle
Conclusion
A grant application has to be competitive to be considered for
funding. So the work is not only about getting to “done” but
“done” and “to quality standards.” (Figure 2)
Figure 2. One Hundred Percent Progress Circle
Effective grant-seeking teams have a sense of where
they’re at in terms of work progress.
By contrast, those which are less savvy tend to jump right
to fantasy. They act as if they have made progress when
they are only at the initial ideation phase. In their minds,
they are already spending the grant funds when they have
done nothing towards acquiring that funding. Surprisingly,
this going to the imagination is not unusual. Perhaps
some believe if they speak something “to the universe”
that it will magically occur or that someone else has mys-
teriously been delegated to do the work on their behalf.
Perhaps prior passivity forms a path dependency that
leads to more future passivity. Then it’s a mental game of
“woulda coulda shoulda.”
Practical ways of marking actual pro-
gress
One helpful way of marking actual progress towards
grants pursuit is to mark particular necessary points-of-
progress. The desired end point is to get a particular grant
application written, approved, and out to compete with the
grant funder. The goal is to be in the top 10% of grant
applications…so as to be at least somewhat competitive.
The following steps may be objectively observable:
1. Identify a grant funding opportunity (such as through a
grant NOFO)
2. Read the NOFO and all related materials
3. Decide to pursue the grant funding
4. Conceptualize a work proposal / work design
5. Conduct relevant research for the grant proposal,
collect relevant data
6. Schedule the work based on the grant funder’s action
period
7. Staff the work and acquire agreements for team work
8. Work out a reasonable budget for the planned work
9. Design a practical program / project evaluation plan
10. Draft the grant application thoroughly
11. Collect all necessary support documentation (tax
5
The Great Wind Down
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
Observers of economies have noticed various cycles of
booms and busts, upturns and downturns. They have ob-
served times of heightened liquidity and also times of spar-
sity and illiquidity.
Beginning in 2025, there was an unprecedented retreat
from federal government funding of higher education, with
massive scale cancellations of contracted academic grant
work, the shuttering of various federal agencies, the mass
layoffs of government workers, the shuttering of institutions
of higher education (IHEs), and the ending of various edu-
cational programs. State government had long been re-
treating from funding higher education already.
The great wind down
The stated reason was to get a handle on the burgeoning
federal deficit, even as trillions in debt were added. Others
suggested that what was going on was Schumpeter’s
“creative destruction,” although the creative re-imagining
had not yet started…only the destruction. For many on-
ground, it felt like a system collapsing in on itself. Shock-
ingly, there was talk of universal basic income as the job
market shrunk (some would say, “imploded”).
Regardless, the “great wind down” was afoot. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. The Great Wind Down
What did this wind down include? There were less transfer
payments for the two lowest quintiles of the U.S. popula-
tion. Tax relief and lowered regulations meant that the
business class had more leeway to juice economic develop-
ment (in theory, if not in practice). Money was taken out of
the system through tariffs (taxes on foreign goods). The
federal government was being downsized, with various agen-
cies closed and professional positions ended.
A great socio-economic reset
In this time of a great socio-economic reset, a lot of lessons
have been learned in real time. In the academic space, peo-
ple realized just how concentrated federal funding is and how
quickly a spigot may be used to turn off the funding.
Higher education was perhaps not right-sized and needed
more downsizing to fit what they were bringing in. While
many academics cringed at the idea of higher education as a
business, it became clear that they had to function like a
business to survive. The academic systems were under
stress, in a time of wild democratic experimentation.
“We don’t need you”
Many in academia were told, “We don’t need you.” Many
realized how much their capabilities were linked to the larger
ecosystem and their professional role in it. Many were sure
of self-value, but in the new economy, they were downgrad-
ed and their positions eliminated. Many had to learn how to
survive in a time of great sparsity and monetary illiquidity and
financial austerity.
In the U.S., people were observing a “k-shaped” economy,
with those in the upper classes doing very well and those in
the lower quintiles experiencing pressure just to put food on
the table. They were not experiencing the same reality.
Near-total shutdown of the academic
grants space
The academic grants space faced a near total shutdown,
with grant writer positions being cancelled and many working
in the “soft money” space let go. Positions related to grant
funding were cut off in mid-stream.
The Great Wind Down
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
Observers of economies have noticed various cycles of
booms and busts, upturns and downturns. They have ob-
served times of heightened liquidity and also times of spar-
sity and illiquidity.
Beginning in 2025, there was an unprecedented retreat
from federal government funding of higher education, with
massive scale cancellations of contracted academic grant
work, the shuttering of various federal agencies, the mass
layoffs of government workers, the shuttering of institutions
of higher education (IHEs), and the ending of various edu-
cational programs. State government had long been re-
treating from funding higher education already.
The great wind down
The stated reason was to get a handle on the burgeoning
federal deficit, even as trillions in debt were added. Others
suggested that what was going on was Schumpeter’s
“creative destruction,” although the creative re-imagining
had not yet started…only the destruction. For many on-
ground, it felt like a system collapsing in on itself. Shock-
ingly, there was talk of universal basic income as the job
market shrunk (some would say, “imploded”).
Regardless, the “great wind down” was afoot. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. The Great Wind Down
What did this wind down include? There were less transfer
payments for the two lowest quintiles of the U.S. popula-
tion. Tax relief and lowered regulations meant that the
business class had more leeway to juice economic develop-
ment (in theory, if not in practice). Money was taken out of
the system through tariffs (taxes on foreign goods). The
federal government was being downsized, with various agen-
cies closed and professional positions ended.
A great socio-economic reset
In this time of a great socio-economic reset, a lot of lessons
have been learned in real time. In the academic space, peo-
ple realized just how concentrated federal funding is and how
quickly a spigot may be used to turn off the funding.
Higher education was perhaps not right-sized and needed
more downsizing to fit what they were bringing in. While
many academics cringed at the idea of higher education as a
business, it became clear that they had to function like a
business to survive. The academic systems were under
stress, in a time of wild democratic experimentation.
“We don’t need you”
Many in academia were told, “We don’t need you.” Many
realized how much their capabilities were linked to the larger
ecosystem and their professional role in it. Many were sure
of self-value, but in the new economy, they were downgrad-
ed and their positions eliminated. Many had to learn how to
survive in a time of great sparsity and monetary illiquidity and
financial austerity.
In the U.S., people were observing a “k-shaped” economy,
with those in the upper classes doing very well and those in
the lower quintiles experiencing pressure just to put food on
the table. They were not experiencing the same reality.
Near-total shutdown of the academic
grants space
The academic grants space faced a near total shutdown,
with grant writer positions being cancelled and many working
in the “soft money” space let go. Positions related to grant
funding were cut off in mid-stream.
6
(Great Wind Down...cont.)
In the Midwest, many professional positions in academia
ended up with lowered standards. For data collection, high
school level education was required only. (Many who have
doctorates struggle with apt data collection.)
College towns have experienced downturns. There are auc-
tions for commercial office buildings. Neighbors are parked
in their driveways all day, with fewer heading to regular work.
Many swaths of housing has fallen to disrepair in various
parts of town. Some towns are islands in a rural sea in all
directions. The rural neighbors are also hurting, with trade
wars and lost markets.
Corruption of the academic research
space
Simultaneously, many researchers stateside and abroad
went to generative AI to “co-create” academic research, with
very poor outputs.
In a time of stress, when professionals have to maintain their
knowledge, skills and abilities / attitudes (KSAs), for the day
after the bust, many were falling short. They were not keep-
ing in practice. They went to lower standards and decep-
tions. They went to trying to work the system. They seemed
to have forgotten that they need to keep their KSAs fresh to
have something to offer the world, perhaps even if the recov-
ery is years out.
The need for positivity
In terms of a positive attitude, that is to enable everyone to
retain a sense of dignity and fight. The positive attitude is
not about Pollyanna-ism but a sense of self-value and emo-
tional equilibrium. This positivity requires a macro sense of
the world and not seeing the present reality as absolutely set
in stone. Change is constantly afoot, for better and for
worse. Change is the name of the game.
The expectation is that a “new normal” is emerging. The
present is witnessing the end of an era, a point of no return.
The future will be comprised of a severe pivot to protection-
ism and non-competitiveness in the research space. Higher
education seems to be in full retreat, from not only various
ideals but innovations and commercial markets.
Conclusion
Where officials may have hoped for an anti-fragile country,
what may emerge may be something much less. So, too,
with higher education, once strongholds for the economy
and the nation.
Observers of economies have noticed
various cycles of booms and busts,
upturns and downturns. They have
observed times of heightened liquidity
and also times of sparsity and illiquidity.
(Great Wind Down...cont.)
In the Midwest, many professional positions in academia
ended up with lowered standards. For data collection, high
school level education was required only. (Many who have
doctorates struggle with apt data collection.)
College towns have experienced downturns. There are auc-
tions for commercial office buildings. Neighbors are parked
in their driveways all day, with fewer heading to regular work.
Many swaths of housing has fallen to disrepair in various
parts of town. Some towns are islands in a rural sea in all
directions. The rural neighbors are also hurting, with trade
wars and lost markets.
Corruption of the academic research
space
Simultaneously, many researchers stateside and abroad
went to generative AI to “co-create” academic research, with
very poor outputs.
In a time of stress, when professionals have to maintain their
knowledge, skills and abilities / attitudes (KSAs), for the day
after the bust, many were falling short. They were not keep-
ing in practice. They went to lower standards and decep-
tions. They went to trying to work the system. They seemed
to have forgotten that they need to keep their KSAs fresh to
have something to offer the world, perhaps even if the recov-
ery is years out.
The need for positivity
In terms of a positive attitude, that is to enable everyone to
retain a sense of dignity and fight. The positive attitude is
not about Pollyanna-ism but a sense of self-value and emo-
tional equilibrium. This positivity requires a macro sense of
the world and not seeing the present reality as absolutely set
in stone. Change is constantly afoot, for better and for
worse. Change is the name of the game.
The expectation is that a “new normal” is emerging. The
present is witnessing the end of an era, a point of no return.
The future will be comprised of a severe pivot to protection-
ism and non-competitiveness in the research space. Higher
education seems to be in full retreat, from not only various
ideals but innovations and commercial markets.
Conclusion
Where officials may have hoped for an anti-fragile country,
what may emerge may be something much less. So, too,
with higher education, once strongholds for the economy
and the nation.
Observers of economies have noticed
various cycles of booms and busts,
upturns and downturns. They have
observed times of heightened liquidity
and also times of sparsity and illiquidity.
7
(cont. on the next page)
Testing the (Grant) Waters
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Plenty of grant writing work is about pursuing particular fund-
ing for particular needs. The basic question is whether there
is possible funding available or not for particular asks. The
amount of funding out there is revealing. If there is a lot avail-
able, that may possibly raise the odds of acquiring some
funding. If not, then the local institution of higher education
(IHE) would do well to look elsewhere for funding (through
fund-raising, through donors, through other parts of the extant
budget).
It is never a negative to ask if there might be grant funding
available. After all, it makes sense to explore every possible
avenue, within reason. A basic environmental scan takes
minimal effort. Any acquired grant funding is “gravy.” Mon-
eys are fungible. What is acquired for one area may free up
something for other areas.
Where mistakes happen is ignoring the findings after one has
tested the waters and found little opportunity. Many fail to
change direction or to pursue other possibilities at that mo-
ment. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Testing the Waters
Perhaps there is excessive hope that it is a matter of digging
to find other possibilities. (Figure 2) There are actually ways
to thoroughly exhaust every possibility using various forms of
online search, AI tools, emails, and Google alerts.
Figure 2. Hope Against Hope
Past expiry
The request came to see if there were funds available for a
health device that was placed in virtually all main buildings
around the campus. These devices cost in the thousands
of dollars. The professional b2b (business-to-business)
ones seemed quite a bit more expensive than business-to-
consumer ones.
An environmental scan found few grant funding sources.
The few sources that did exist doled out enough for one or
two a year, and their focuses seemed to be to the K12 edu-
cational system. Some retail companies advertised some
grant funding, but many of these seemed to be to find sales
leads more than for actual granting. (Websites are infa-
mous for making loose claims.)
All such devices are subject to inexorable time. Their effica-
cy dates out. Given how critical it is for such devices to
work in emergencies, they have to have a high level of
trustworthiness and rigor.
(cont. on the next page)
Testing the (Grant) Waters
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Plenty of grant writing work is about pursuing particular fund-
ing for particular needs. The basic question is whether there
is possible funding available or not for particular asks. The
amount of funding out there is revealing. If there is a lot avail-
able, that may possibly raise the odds of acquiring some
funding. If not, then the local institution of higher education
(IHE) would do well to look elsewhere for funding (through
fund-raising, through donors, through other parts of the extant
budget).
It is never a negative to ask if there might be grant funding
available. After all, it makes sense to explore every possible
avenue, within reason. A basic environmental scan takes
minimal effort. Any acquired grant funding is “gravy.” Mon-
eys are fungible. What is acquired for one area may free up
something for other areas.
Where mistakes happen is ignoring the findings after one has
tested the waters and found little opportunity. Many fail to
change direction or to pursue other possibilities at that mo-
ment. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Testing the Waters
Perhaps there is excessive hope that it is a matter of digging
to find other possibilities. (Figure 2) There are actually ways
to thoroughly exhaust every possibility using various forms of
online search, AI tools, emails, and Google alerts.
Figure 2. Hope Against Hope
Past expiry
The request came to see if there were funds available for a
health device that was placed in virtually all main buildings
around the campus. These devices cost in the thousands
of dollars. The professional b2b (business-to-business)
ones seemed quite a bit more expensive than business-to-
consumer ones.
An environmental scan found few grant funding sources.
The few sources that did exist doled out enough for one or
two a year, and their focuses seemed to be to the K12 edu-
cational system. Some retail companies advertised some
grant funding, but many of these seemed to be to find sales
leads more than for actual granting. (Websites are infa-
mous for making loose claims.)
All such devices are subject to inexorable time. Their effica-
cy dates out. Given how critical it is for such devices to
work in emergencies, they have to have a high level of
trustworthiness and rigor.
8
(Testing the Waters...cont.)
Also, in the larger ecosystem, there are literally 128,000 to
131,000 K12 schools and some 4,000 institutions of higher
education (IHE). These organizations are all important but
are undifferentiated in the sense of grant funding to cover
such devices. They vary in demographics and geographical
location. But in terms of such devices, their needs are the
same. And it is likely that not all the K12 schools and the
IHEs have such devices in equal measure. There are cer-
tainly uncovered areas.
Such needs should be noted prior to expiry of such devices
because even if funding possibilities are available, the cycles
go annually. And the odds are always low. Asking after the
devices have expired becomes problematic for the IHE and
those who use the campus regularly. Starting early never
hurts.
Other options to fund the medical de-
vices?
After some objective review, the thread of hope in successful
acquisition of grant funds to replace such medical devices
went to nil.
Could the college start to charge rent for events, something
that they were loathe to do for years? Could they reach out
to a wealthy donor? Tap other parts of the budget?
Conclusion
Technologies, equipment, and facilities are always constant-
ly running up against the clock and the depredations of time.
There should always be moneys set aside to maintain infra-
structure. That would be in an ideal world.
(Testing the Waters...cont.)
Also, in the larger ecosystem, there are literally 128,000 to
131,000 K12 schools and some 4,000 institutions of higher
education (IHE). These organizations are all important but
are undifferentiated in the sense of grant funding to cover
such devices. They vary in demographics and geographical
location. But in terms of such devices, their needs are the
same. And it is likely that not all the K12 schools and the
IHEs have such devices in equal measure. There are cer-
tainly uncovered areas.
Such needs should be noted prior to expiry of such devices
because even if funding possibilities are available, the cycles
go annually. And the odds are always low. Asking after the
devices have expired becomes problematic for the IHE and
those who use the campus regularly. Starting early never
hurts.
Other options to fund the medical de-
vices?
After some objective review, the thread of hope in successful
acquisition of grant funds to replace such medical devices
went to nil.
Could the college start to charge rent for events, something
that they were loathe to do for years? Could they reach out
to a wealthy donor? Tap other parts of the budget?
Conclusion
Technologies, equipment, and facilities are always constant-
ly running up against the clock and the depredations of time.
There should always be moneys set aside to maintain infra-
structure. That would be in an ideal world.
9
(cont. on the next page)
Grant-Seeking Authorities
By Shalin Hai-Jew
No grant application gets off campus without a series of
approvals from the aspiring grant principal investigator (PI)
through the bureaucracy up to the president’s office. It is
important to understand the chain of authorities if one is to
successfully apply for grant funding. This is just to get the
application out of the door…and into the hands of the grant
funders, into the field of play. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Authorities
The cost of professional affiliation
For administrators, faculty, and staff linked to an institution
of higher education (IHE), they generally have to fly the
organization’s flag when they apply for grant funding. They
cannot just freelance on their own. After all, most grant
funders care about having some bureaucratic and supervi-
sory structure over the individual or team…to ensure that
the work is done professionally and to standard. They need
to make sure that there is an entity with deep pockets that is
responsible if the work falls through and the original grant
funding has to be clawed back.
The authorities for decision-making related to grants align
neatly with where the responsibilities lie legally in an IHE.
Who gets to decide what?
Generally speaking, who decides what at each phase of a
grant application?
At the start, an aspiring grant principal investigator (PI) has
to be interested in a particular project that may be funded by
a grant funder. This individual or team (of co-PIs) is sup-
ported by the grant writer, in terms of work design, research,
data analysis, and writing, among others. (A grant writer
does not have standing to initiate a grant application. This
role does not have the authority to pursue grant funding as a
freelancer.) The grant PI or team will do the work if the
grant is funded. They also take on legal responsibility once
the grant funding contract is signed. This responsibility is
also shared by the college administration. It is the preroga-
tive of the grant PI and team to advance the grant proposal
or not. (In the author’s experience, they have never retract-
ed a grant proposal on their own.)
Local middle managers are the next level in the hierarchy
that has a say-so in terms of grant pursuit. Typically, grant
PIs will have acquired permission before starting the grant
process. Others wait until they have a draft before running
the proposal up-the-chain for approvals.
Next up would be the college’s business office and the pres-
ident’s office, both of which provide documentation, internal
letters of support, and some oversight. This is the level at
which politics and personalities become potentially quite
onerous. To get a grant application off-campus, at the so-
called “water’s edge,” the proposal has to pass muster. Its
data has to be tight. The grant funder’s public facing web-
sites have to pass political muster. [The president’s offices
seems especially sensitive to political winds because it rep-
resents the college to broad publics, to the state, to the larg-
er community, to peer institutions, and so on. It cannot af-
ford for a small endeavor to cause political problems. If cold
feet appear anywhere, it seems to be at this level.]
Sometimes, the approvals have to go to the Board of Trus-
tees, such as in cases where the college has to provide
even more complex documentation and signoffs. [The one
cases the author is thinking of is the need of a federal agen-
cy for a backdated document. In this case, the Board of
Trustees could not legally provide the document, and the
federal agency could not accept a completed grants pack-
age without that one idiosyncratic required document.]
(cont. on the next page)
Grant-Seeking Authorities
By Shalin Hai-Jew
No grant application gets off campus without a series of
approvals from the aspiring grant principal investigator (PI)
through the bureaucracy up to the president’s office. It is
important to understand the chain of authorities if one is to
successfully apply for grant funding. This is just to get the
application out of the door…and into the hands of the grant
funders, into the field of play. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Authorities
The cost of professional affiliation
For administrators, faculty, and staff linked to an institution
of higher education (IHE), they generally have to fly the
organization’s flag when they apply for grant funding. They
cannot just freelance on their own. After all, most grant
funders care about having some bureaucratic and supervi-
sory structure over the individual or team…to ensure that
the work is done professionally and to standard. They need
to make sure that there is an entity with deep pockets that is
responsible if the work falls through and the original grant
funding has to be clawed back.
The authorities for decision-making related to grants align
neatly with where the responsibilities lie legally in an IHE.
Who gets to decide what?
Generally speaking, who decides what at each phase of a
grant application?
At the start, an aspiring grant principal investigator (PI) has
to be interested in a particular project that may be funded by
a grant funder. This individual or team (of co-PIs) is sup-
ported by the grant writer, in terms of work design, research,
data analysis, and writing, among others. (A grant writer
does not have standing to initiate a grant application. This
role does not have the authority to pursue grant funding as a
freelancer.) The grant PI or team will do the work if the
grant is funded. They also take on legal responsibility once
the grant funding contract is signed. This responsibility is
also shared by the college administration. It is the preroga-
tive of the grant PI and team to advance the grant proposal
or not. (In the author’s experience, they have never retract-
ed a grant proposal on their own.)
Local middle managers are the next level in the hierarchy
that has a say-so in terms of grant pursuit. Typically, grant
PIs will have acquired permission before starting the grant
process. Others wait until they have a draft before running
the proposal up-the-chain for approvals.
Next up would be the college’s business office and the pres-
ident’s office, both of which provide documentation, internal
letters of support, and some oversight. This is the level at
which politics and personalities become potentially quite
onerous. To get a grant application off-campus, at the so-
called “water’s edge,” the proposal has to pass muster. Its
data has to be tight. The grant funder’s public facing web-
sites have to pass political muster. [The president’s offices
seems especially sensitive to political winds because it rep-
resents the college to broad publics, to the state, to the larg-
er community, to peer institutions, and so on. It cannot af-
ford for a small endeavor to cause political problems. If cold
feet appear anywhere, it seems to be at this level.]
Sometimes, the approvals have to go to the Board of Trus-
tees, such as in cases where the college has to provide
even more complex documentation and signoffs. [The one
cases the author is thinking of is the need of a federal agen-
cy for a backdated document. In this case, the Board of
Trustees could not legally provide the document, and the
federal agency could not accept a completed grants pack-
age without that one idiosyncratic required document.]
10
(Grant-Seeking Authorities...cont.)
Any number of challenges can scotch the grant application
endeavor, even for invited grants with so-called “sure mon-
ey.”
The college may retract a grant application after submittal.
It can cancel contracts for funded grants, such as when the
local team collapses (as did occur). Administrators (and
people in general) reserve the right to say yes and then
say no.
Every individual and every office have their own decision
processes and sequences, their own decision trees (no
matter if they have this spelled out coherently or not). Most
do not share their decision-making process publicly, and
no one seems to appreciate being challenged on their pro-
fessional choices, even when a lot of potential money may
be at stake. In their yes/no binary decision-making, most
are non-negotiable and without explanation.
What decides what?
For the organization that takes on the legal responsibility
(and liabilities), they have an interest in ensuring that the
grant applications…
• Align with the stated mission, vision, and values of the
organization
• Do not present undue risks
• Are not more trouble than it’s worth (such as triggering
audits of various kinds)
• Result in some monetary flow to the college or univer-
sity (not just to stand-alone projects of the faculty)
• Do not make the IHE look bad
• Do not bring unwanted public attention
• Do not cause political challenges
• Do not dilute other endeavors on campus
• Do not result in misuse of college equipment and facili-
ties
• And so on
There are other reasons, too, for certain decisions that may
relate to internal politics and difficult personalities. And be-
yond that, some decision-making is quite inexplicable.
Condensed to one point of contact
Some IHEs that have established policies overseen by their
legal counsel…can set up processes that are less onerous
and more efficient. They can offer a single point of contact,
perhaps in a preawards office, and they can use a basic
grants technology to enable timely back-end sign-offs.
It takes confidence to set the policy and let the systems run.
For smaller IHEs, they tend to maintain high levels of human
oversight and control. They are communicating more admin-
istrative relevance vs. local controls and local trust in their
line staff. These also often do not have full-time legal coun-
sel and so are less confident in risk-taking.
(cont. on p. 14)
(Grant-Seeking Authorities...cont.)
Any number of challenges can scotch the grant application
endeavor, even for invited grants with so-called “sure mon-
ey.”
The college may retract a grant application after submittal.
It can cancel contracts for funded grants, such as when the
local team collapses (as did occur). Administrators (and
people in general) reserve the right to say yes and then
say no.
Every individual and every office have their own decision
processes and sequences, their own decision trees (no
matter if they have this spelled out coherently or not). Most
do not share their decision-making process publicly, and
no one seems to appreciate being challenged on their pro-
fessional choices, even when a lot of potential money may
be at stake. In their yes/no binary decision-making, most
are non-negotiable and without explanation.
What decides what?
For the organization that takes on the legal responsibility
(and liabilities), they have an interest in ensuring that the
grant applications…
• Align with the stated mission, vision, and values of the
organization
• Do not present undue risks
• Are not more trouble than it’s worth (such as triggering
audits of various kinds)
• Result in some monetary flow to the college or univer-
sity (not just to stand-alone projects of the faculty)
• Do not make the IHE look bad
• Do not bring unwanted public attention
• Do not cause political challenges
• Do not dilute other endeavors on campus
• Do not result in misuse of college equipment and facili-
ties
• And so on
There are other reasons, too, for certain decisions that may
relate to internal politics and difficult personalities. And be-
yond that, some decision-making is quite inexplicable.
Condensed to one point of contact
Some IHEs that have established policies overseen by their
legal counsel…can set up processes that are less onerous
and more efficient. They can offer a single point of contact,
perhaps in a preawards office, and they can use a basic
grants technology to enable timely back-end sign-offs.
It takes confidence to set the policy and let the systems run.
For smaller IHEs, they tend to maintain high levels of human
oversight and control. They are communicating more admin-
istrative relevance vs. local controls and local trust in their
line staff. These also often do not have full-time legal coun-
sel and so are less confident in risk-taking.
(cont. on p. 14)
11
Legacy of a Former Grant Writer
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
Over the years, one has seen many professionals come and
go, at every level of an organization. In some cases, a lega-
cy of a provost was a spindly little tree on campus with a
small sign attached. For a popular student affairs adminis-
trator, he had a part of campus named after him. For a
school president, he had a giant going-away party before
the grumbling started in his wake. He was remembered for
a greenspace to which he’d invested some $2 million in col-
lege funds.
The idea of legacy contains something of hubris in most
cases. So, too, is the idea of a former grant writer’s
“legacy.” In most cases, whatever work was done has had
some effect, and then, people move on and forget. (Figure
1)
Figure 1. Grant Writer Legacy
This short article offers a light musing about what legacy
may be left behind by a former grant writer.
Trained individuals and teams
In some cases, there have been, perhaps, some trained
individuals and teams, whose projects were pursued by the
grant writer during their professional stint.
There are the funded grants and the work, which will contin-
ue for a year and maybe up to five years, for renewable
grants. Perhaps there have been smooth handoffs…and
the individuals have the confidence to pursue other grant
funds into the future.
Perhaps one of the colleagues picked up a new technique
or technology. The grants space requires complex skillsets
in terms of reading, work design, project management,
staffing setups, research, documentation, data analysis,
digital authoring, legal understandings, and others, based
on an in-depth KSA set (knowledge, skills, and abilities /
attitudes). Perhaps something of grit may have been
passed along, given the headwinds in the grant pursuits
space.
Structural changes
Perhaps the grant writer originated some new processes.
Perhaps they set up new templates, checklists, matrices,
and other informational tools, for grant pursuit. (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Processes and Templates
Legacy of a Former Grant Writer
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
Over the years, one has seen many professionals come and
go, at every level of an organization. In some cases, a lega-
cy of a provost was a spindly little tree on campus with a
small sign attached. For a popular student affairs adminis-
trator, he had a part of campus named after him. For a
school president, he had a giant going-away party before
the grumbling started in his wake. He was remembered for
a greenspace to which he’d invested some $2 million in col-
lege funds.
The idea of legacy contains something of hubris in most
cases. So, too, is the idea of a former grant writer’s
“legacy.” In most cases, whatever work was done has had
some effect, and then, people move on and forget. (Figure
1)
Figure 1. Grant Writer Legacy
This short article offers a light musing about what legacy
may be left behind by a former grant writer.
Trained individuals and teams
In some cases, there have been, perhaps, some trained
individuals and teams, whose projects were pursued by the
grant writer during their professional stint.
There are the funded grants and the work, which will contin-
ue for a year and maybe up to five years, for renewable
grants. Perhaps there have been smooth handoffs…and
the individuals have the confidence to pursue other grant
funds into the future.
Perhaps one of the colleagues picked up a new technique
or technology. The grants space requires complex skillsets
in terms of reading, work design, project management,
staffing setups, research, documentation, data analysis,
digital authoring, legal understandings, and others, based
on an in-depth KSA set (knowledge, skills, and abilities /
attitudes). Perhaps something of grit may have been
passed along, given the headwinds in the grant pursuits
space.
Structural changes
Perhaps the grant writer originated some new processes.
Perhaps they set up new templates, checklists, matrices,
and other informational tools, for grant pursuit. (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Processes and Templates
12
(cont. on p. 14)
(Legacy...cont.)
Perhaps there were some new bureaucratic units stood up
to address aspects of the grant preawards, like an IRB. Per-
haps there were policies instantiated and publicized. Per-
haps new student data is being collected, which will benefit
future grant pursuits. Additional datasets can be a powerful
tool.
But some digital leave-behinds, too
Beyond the structural, there may be other elements, too:
online short courses, trainings on the local LMS, newsletters,
and other files. Digital leave-behinds have value if they are
used but not if they are mothballed or deleted or hidden.
(Figure 3)
Figure 3. Digital Leave-Behinds
The large folder of grant application materials—the finalized
files as well as the raw support files—is an important leave-
behind, but only if it is archived and made available. Re-
sources remain inert unless there is a person in the present
or future that knows how to make use of the resources.
Hardest parts of the work
Truth to tell, without an assigned person in charge of grant
pursuit and the preawards function, the work will only be
done in some specific parts of the bureaucracy, by those who
already have some experience in the space. If the admin-
istration does not communicate the importance of grant pur-
suits…and lighten the political burdens of such pursuit, the
work will not be done. Even with tailwinds, many profession-
als do not find it worth their while to try. The complexities of
regulations and legal liabilities are highly off-putting for oth-
ers. If they cannot share the risk, they may not feel suffi-
ciently safe to pursue the work.
Without regular practice, skills also decay. Mental models
come to the fore and supplant the conceptual (expert) mod-
els. The local team falls into myopia and self-dealing. There
is a tendency towards the fading of knowledge and skills.
Institutional knowledge corrupts; it disappears. Opportunities
are lost. Future phases of grants may or may not get funded.
Without support, the community of practice returns to local
concerns. The social fabric for such endeavors become
more holes than cloth.
Only as good as the last funded grant
In one sense, a grant writer is only as good as the last fund-
ed grant they acquired. That may seem harsh, but the posi-
tion is a service one, and the core interest of the administra-
tion is to acquire external sponsorships to achieve college
programs and interests, to fulfill the college mission, essen-
tially.
Grants marketplace and commons as a
dynamic space
The grants marketplace (and commons) is a highly dynamic
one. There is a level of unpredictability in terms of how grant
funding, the surrounding laws and practices, and such, will
evolve.
(cont. on p. 14)
(Legacy...cont.)
Perhaps there were some new bureaucratic units stood up
to address aspects of the grant preawards, like an IRB. Per-
haps there were policies instantiated and publicized. Per-
haps new student data is being collected, which will benefit
future grant pursuits. Additional datasets can be a powerful
tool.
But some digital leave-behinds, too
Beyond the structural, there may be other elements, too:
online short courses, trainings on the local LMS, newsletters,
and other files. Digital leave-behinds have value if they are
used but not if they are mothballed or deleted or hidden.
(Figure 3)
Figure 3. Digital Leave-Behinds
The large folder of grant application materials—the finalized
files as well as the raw support files—is an important leave-
behind, but only if it is archived and made available. Re-
sources remain inert unless there is a person in the present
or future that knows how to make use of the resources.
Hardest parts of the work
Truth to tell, without an assigned person in charge of grant
pursuit and the preawards function, the work will only be
done in some specific parts of the bureaucracy, by those who
already have some experience in the space. If the admin-
istration does not communicate the importance of grant pur-
suits…and lighten the political burdens of such pursuit, the
work will not be done. Even with tailwinds, many profession-
als do not find it worth their while to try. The complexities of
regulations and legal liabilities are highly off-putting for oth-
ers. If they cannot share the risk, they may not feel suffi-
ciently safe to pursue the work.
Without regular practice, skills also decay. Mental models
come to the fore and supplant the conceptual (expert) mod-
els. The local team falls into myopia and self-dealing. There
is a tendency towards the fading of knowledge and skills.
Institutional knowledge corrupts; it disappears. Opportunities
are lost. Future phases of grants may or may not get funded.
Without support, the community of practice returns to local
concerns. The social fabric for such endeavors become
more holes than cloth.
Only as good as the last funded grant
In one sense, a grant writer is only as good as the last fund-
ed grant they acquired. That may seem harsh, but the posi-
tion is a service one, and the core interest of the administra-
tion is to acquire external sponsorships to achieve college
programs and interests, to fulfill the college mission, essen-
tially.
Grants marketplace and commons as a
dynamic space
The grants marketplace (and commons) is a highly dynamic
one. There is a level of unpredictability in terms of how grant
funding, the surrounding laws and practices, and such, will
evolve.
13
Being Sporting in the Grants Space
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
It takes a lot of preparation, learning, and practice to get on
the field of play for any sport…and to be competitive in the
space. There is no automatic entrée to any sport.
And yet, in terms of grant seeking, many seem to assume
that no special preparation is needed. They do not see rules
as necessarily applying. There is a sense that an application
is automatically funded because the grant applicant is de-
serving.
The assumptions spill out in terms of how they behave in the
space. What many do not realize is that if they are not sport-
ing (rule-bound, ethical, respectful, prosocial, and non-
manipulative) in the grants space, they are ceding the field.
(Figure 1) They are self-benching. They are not able to
compete. They are not able to even approach the field of
play.
Figure 1. Sporting
Being sporting in the grants space
Being sporting, at core, is about playing by the rules that
govern the game, without trying to put a thumb on the scale
or to tilt advantage into one’s direction. Playing fair is about
not having the referees having to call foul on one’s actions.
The understanding about grants requires learning and then
the discipline to follow the rules, ethically, respectfully, and
prosocially.
Grant work is never just about the local grantee’s organiza-
tion. It is also about the larger grants marketplace (and com-
mos), the grant funder, colleagues writ large, and the larger
society. Relevant work has relevance beyond the local.
In organizations with poor leadership, there are various inap-
propriate behaviors: dishonesty, misrepresentation of infor-
mation, falsehoods, falsified data, false claims, nepotism,
insider information, misspent funds, and other forms of unfair
advantage. There is a lack of follow-through. There is a
withholding of information, such as conflicts of interest.
Instead of earned capabilities, the organization goes to PR to
manage impressions. Such organizations (or parts of organi-
zations) have teams that have forgotten how to be competi-
tive for external sponsorships. They’ve forgotten that they
need to offer something of value for the funding. They have
forgotten that grant funding is about a transaction, an ex-
change, not free money. Rather, there is an attitude of de-
servingness and entitlement. There is a sense of “we are
owed.”
Being Sporting in the Grants Space
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
It takes a lot of preparation, learning, and practice to get on
the field of play for any sport…and to be competitive in the
space. There is no automatic entrée to any sport.
And yet, in terms of grant seeking, many seem to assume
that no special preparation is needed. They do not see rules
as necessarily applying. There is a sense that an application
is automatically funded because the grant applicant is de-
serving.
The assumptions spill out in terms of how they behave in the
space. What many do not realize is that if they are not sport-
ing (rule-bound, ethical, respectful, prosocial, and non-
manipulative) in the grants space, they are ceding the field.
(Figure 1) They are self-benching. They are not able to
compete. They are not able to even approach the field of
play.
Figure 1. Sporting
Being sporting in the grants space
Being sporting, at core, is about playing by the rules that
govern the game, without trying to put a thumb on the scale
or to tilt advantage into one’s direction. Playing fair is about
not having the referees having to call foul on one’s actions.
The understanding about grants requires learning and then
the discipline to follow the rules, ethically, respectfully, and
prosocially.
Grant work is never just about the local grantee’s organiza-
tion. It is also about the larger grants marketplace (and com-
mos), the grant funder, colleagues writ large, and the larger
society. Relevant work has relevance beyond the local.
In organizations with poor leadership, there are various inap-
propriate behaviors: dishonesty, misrepresentation of infor-
mation, falsehoods, falsified data, false claims, nepotism,
insider information, misspent funds, and other forms of unfair
advantage. There is a lack of follow-through. There is a
withholding of information, such as conflicts of interest.
Instead of earned capabilities, the organization goes to PR to
manage impressions. Such organizations (or parts of organi-
zations) have teams that have forgotten how to be competi-
tive for external sponsorships. They’ve forgotten that they
need to offer something of value for the funding. They have
forgotten that grant funding is about a transaction, an ex-
change, not free money. Rather, there is an attitude of de-
servingness and entitlement. There is a sense of “we are
owed.”
14
(Legacy...cont. from p. 12)
(Sporting...cont.)
Respecting the stated deadlines is an important sense of
being sporting and respectful. The deadlines are there for a
reason, and all applicants have to engage in the same level
of scramble.
Conclusion
Being sporting is a core requirement. It is not something that
a grant applicant team brags about.
Even as something of postawards capabilities may exist,
scattered around the institution of higher education, few will
find or make the extra time to pursue external funding.
Many in community and technical colleges already carry
heavy work loads. There may just not be the head space or
the energy or the good will to pursue external funding.
Grant pursuit itself is seen by many as hard and somewhat
thankless work.
Conclusion
It is hard to pass on KSAs. It is hard to instill enthusiasm in
others to do extra work for which the only reward is political
pressure and extra unpaid work.
So legacy? Not really.
Anyone who has studied history…knows that the lessons
are few and far between. What is salvaged from the past
may be some ephemeral ideas…if that.
The idea of legacy contains something of
hubris in most cases. So, too, is the idea of a
former grant writer’s “legacy.” In most cases,
whatever work was done has had some ef-
fect, and then, people move on and forget.
(Grant-Seeking Authorities...cont. from p. 10)
Conclusion
Authorities are important to understand for grant seekers
and grant writers. The approvals process is important to
follow for successful work.
(Legacy...cont. from p. 12)
(Sporting...cont.)
Respecting the stated deadlines is an important sense of
being sporting and respectful. The deadlines are there for a
reason, and all applicants have to engage in the same level
of scramble.
Conclusion
Being sporting is a core requirement. It is not something that
a grant applicant team brags about.
Even as something of postawards capabilities may exist,
scattered around the institution of higher education, few will
find or make the extra time to pursue external funding.
Many in community and technical colleges already carry
heavy work loads. There may just not be the head space or
the energy or the good will to pursue external funding.
Grant pursuit itself is seen by many as hard and somewhat
thankless work.
Conclusion
It is hard to pass on KSAs. It is hard to instill enthusiasm in
others to do extra work for which the only reward is political
pressure and extra unpaid work.
So legacy? Not really.
Anyone who has studied history…knows that the lessons
are few and far between. What is salvaged from the past
may be some ephemeral ideas…if that.
The idea of legacy contains something of
hubris in most cases. So, too, is the idea of a
former grant writer’s “legacy.” In most cases,
whatever work was done has had some ef-
fect, and then, people move on and forget.
(Grant-Seeking Authorities...cont. from p. 10)
Conclusion
Authorities are important to understand for grant seekers
and grant writers. The approvals process is important to
follow for successful work.
15
Controlling for Costs in a Grant Application Budget
Proposals
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
Figure 2. Frugal Budgeting
First, it helps to review the basic rules of the grant funder.
Virtually all gran funders stipulate what they will cover and
what they will not cover. (This is a lot like health insurance
companies which define allowable charges vs. disallowable
ones.) Grant funder guidelines are enforced fairly assidu-
ously in many cases.
Second, the costs identified have to generally be direct
costs, for products, goods, services, travel, professional
conferences, and such, that directly go into the grant-
funded work (if approved). The budget has to align with the
project narrative, the work design, the staffing, and the like.
The budget table should align with the budget narrative. All
the elements have to work of-a-piece.
In most cases, for community and technical colleges, there
are no allowances for F&A costs (facilities and administra-
tion) or overhead costs. Those are assumed to be covered
by the grant applicant with their existing budgets. [In review-
ing some old grant forms, HR had insinuated itself into a
major grant. They wanted their cut, even though they had no
standing per se and the historical grant did not allow for
F&A. Without discipline, various entities at an IHE will pile
on for the funding.]
In a time of austerity, those institutions of higher education
(IHE) pursuing the sparse grant funds have to make a solid
case for every dollar that they are requesting.
The “do more with less” mantra is a very real thing, in a
time of belt tightening. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Belt Tightening
A proper budget may be the difference between being fund-
ed or not, given even tougher odds of receiving discretion-
ary grant funds.
How to control for costs in the grant
application budget
What are some ways to control for costs in the grant appli-
cation budget? What are ways to be frugal? (Figure 2)
Controlling for Costs in a Grant Application Budget
Proposals
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
Figure 2. Frugal Budgeting
First, it helps to review the basic rules of the grant funder.
Virtually all gran funders stipulate what they will cover and
what they will not cover. (This is a lot like health insurance
companies which define allowable charges vs. disallowable
ones.) Grant funder guidelines are enforced fairly assidu-
ously in many cases.
Second, the costs identified have to generally be direct
costs, for products, goods, services, travel, professional
conferences, and such, that directly go into the grant-
funded work (if approved). The budget has to align with the
project narrative, the work design, the staffing, and the like.
The budget table should align with the budget narrative. All
the elements have to work of-a-piece.
In most cases, for community and technical colleges, there
are no allowances for F&A costs (facilities and administra-
tion) or overhead costs. Those are assumed to be covered
by the grant applicant with their existing budgets. [In review-
ing some old grant forms, HR had insinuated itself into a
major grant. They wanted their cut, even though they had no
standing per se and the historical grant did not allow for
F&A. Without discipline, various entities at an IHE will pile
on for the funding.]
In a time of austerity, those institutions of higher education
(IHE) pursuing the sparse grant funds have to make a solid
case for every dollar that they are requesting.
The “do more with less” mantra is a very real thing, in a
time of belt tightening. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Belt Tightening
A proper budget may be the difference between being fund-
ed or not, given even tougher odds of receiving discretion-
ary grant funds.
How to control for costs in the grant
application budget
What are some ways to control for costs in the grant appli-
cation budget? What are ways to be frugal? (Figure 2)
16
(Controlling for Costs...cont.)
Third, the cost estimates have to be based on the contempo-
raneous marketplace. The costs need to be detailed and
justified. They have to be listed out in a line-item bases so
the grant funder may exercise their line-item veto rights.
(They can challenge any proposed cost in the budget.) A
proposed budget cannot be put together in a careless way,
with back-of-the-napkin guesstimates. There is a process to
actually pricing things out accurately. Numbers cannot just
be pulled out from the air. Actual math should be shown for
how totals are arrived at.
Struggling against greed / “raking it in”
One of the major struggles in budgeting is the understanda-
ble human tendency towards greed and wanting to “rake it
in.” Grant applicants would do well to form a sense of fair-
ness and proportionality. (Figure 3)
Figure 3. Fair Proportionality
There has to be paying fair wages for outside labor but not to
excess. There has to be avoidance of over-counting and
burdening budgets for other non-grant-funded work needs. .
In one case, administrators at a college would not set up an
academic program for a company until it became clear that
they would not get the new building that they’d been pushing
for for years. In another case, a team out of several universi-
ties stateside wanted six-figure funds to help students adopt
a free book created in another country. They finally came
around to agreeing to propose writing their own academic
text. Depending on local dynamics, all sorts of proposals—
ridiculous or not—end up going out the door.
Making the case for local investments
Besides offering a work design that is valuable and doable,
the local grant applicant team is expected to invest locally,
with matching funds and in-kind contributions, in many cas-
es. The outside sponsor is often not interested in being the
sole funder and to take on all risks themselves.
If there are partners to the project, they are expected to
bring things to the table, too: expertise, value, insight, labor,
and other necessities.
Showing efficiencies
Essentially, the budget should be efficient, with much work
achieved for as little cost as possible. A competitive budget
is not padded, not inflated, and not inaccurate. A competi-
tive budget shows foresight and planning and sophisticated.
It shows justification for every cost.
Conclusion
Keeping costs under control is a core part of ensuring that
the grant application is competitive. There are changing
terms of grant awards in a time of mass-scale illiquidity.
There is much less tolerance for self-indulgence in the dis-
cretionary funding landscape. Those who are not adapting
will end up with the unfunded no-cost option and the declina-
tion.
The budget has to be actionable. It has to sufficiently fund
the actual proposed work to quality within the designated
time, with the exact staff, and within budget. There is noth-
ing fantastical about the working budget, which has to work.
One of the major struggles in budgeting is
the understandable human tendency
towards greed and wanting to “rake it in.”
Grant applicants would do well to form a
sense of fairness and proportionality.
(Controlling for Costs...cont.)
Third, the cost estimates have to be based on the contempo-
raneous marketplace. The costs need to be detailed and
justified. They have to be listed out in a line-item bases so
the grant funder may exercise their line-item veto rights.
(They can challenge any proposed cost in the budget.) A
proposed budget cannot be put together in a careless way,
with back-of-the-napkin guesstimates. There is a process to
actually pricing things out accurately. Numbers cannot just
be pulled out from the air. Actual math should be shown for
how totals are arrived at.
Struggling against greed / “raking it in”
One of the major struggles in budgeting is the understanda-
ble human tendency towards greed and wanting to “rake it
in.” Grant applicants would do well to form a sense of fair-
ness and proportionality. (Figure 3)
Figure 3. Fair Proportionality
There has to be paying fair wages for outside labor but not to
excess. There has to be avoidance of over-counting and
burdening budgets for other non-grant-funded work needs. .
In one case, administrators at a college would not set up an
academic program for a company until it became clear that
they would not get the new building that they’d been pushing
for for years. In another case, a team out of several universi-
ties stateside wanted six-figure funds to help students adopt
a free book created in another country. They finally came
around to agreeing to propose writing their own academic
text. Depending on local dynamics, all sorts of proposals—
ridiculous or not—end up going out the door.
Making the case for local investments
Besides offering a work design that is valuable and doable,
the local grant applicant team is expected to invest locally,
with matching funds and in-kind contributions, in many cas-
es. The outside sponsor is often not interested in being the
sole funder and to take on all risks themselves.
If there are partners to the project, they are expected to
bring things to the table, too: expertise, value, insight, labor,
and other necessities.
Showing efficiencies
Essentially, the budget should be efficient, with much work
achieved for as little cost as possible. A competitive budget
is not padded, not inflated, and not inaccurate. A competi-
tive budget shows foresight and planning and sophisticated.
It shows justification for every cost.
Conclusion
Keeping costs under control is a core part of ensuring that
the grant application is competitive. There are changing
terms of grant awards in a time of mass-scale illiquidity.
There is much less tolerance for self-indulgence in the dis-
cretionary funding landscape. Those who are not adapting
will end up with the unfunded no-cost option and the declina-
tion.
The budget has to be actionable. It has to sufficiently fund
the actual proposed work to quality within the designated
time, with the exact staff, and within budget. There is noth-
ing fantastical about the working budget, which has to work.
One of the major struggles in budgeting is
the understandable human tendency
towards greed and wanting to “rake it in.”
Grant applicants would do well to form a
sense of fairness and proportionality.
17
Grant Application Prims
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
A concept and practice from multimedia development can
prove useful in the grant writing space, namely, the practice
of “prims” (geometric primitives). Primitives are base objects
used in combination with other prims to create a more com-
plex object. These are “atomistic” objects that are at the
lowest common denominator. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Prims
Basic building blocks of a grant appli-
cation
Prims in a grant application context may be understood as
base units of information, of various modalities (text, still
visual, video, sound, data, dataset) and mixed modalities
(multimedia) that communicate core information for a grant
application.
The idea is that there are essential and necessary elements
in a grant application that recur, no matter what form the
grant application takes. In other words, prims appear in
grant applications across a range of application forms. They
may be presented in different orders, with different branching
logic. They may be reframed. They may be rewritten to focus
on different aspects. But they are fundamental to the essen-
tial grant application.
A grant application may be created top-down or bottom-up,
or some mix of approaches. A prims approach is a bottom-
up approach, in which the core elements are designed and
then brought into the grant application mix. Writing a grant
application from the original assigned form is a top-down
approach.
Added to the prims will be additional other information based
on the grant funder’s NOFO (notice of funding opportunity),
legal and regulatory environment, and other factors.
Building up a set of accurate prims
So what are some of these core basic units that recur across
different grant application types?
There are different ways to conceptualize prims. One may
be as a combination of information + modality. For example,
a resume in text form may be a prim. A professional biog-
raphy of a team member in text form may be a prim. A
budget data table may be a prim. A visual personnel chart
may be a prim. Et cetera.
If a grant application is made up of five core elements, prims
may be understood as fitting within these elements (at least
in a basic grant application). The five core elements (as
defined by the author) include the following:
1. The work design / work proposal (with core inputs, activ-
ities, outputs, and outcomes)
2. The work scheduling in alignment with the action period
of the grant funder
3. Staffing
4. Budgeting
5. Program / project evaluations
For the work design, prims may include the following: re-
search data table, research data visualization, a logic model,
organizational history, department history, photos, data sets,
geographical map, and the like.
For the work scheduling, the prims may include a filled cal-
endar, a timeline, a Gantt chart, and others.
For the staffing, the prims may include resumes, CVs, pro-
fessional bios, photos, personnel chart, and others.
Grant Application Prims
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
A concept and practice from multimedia development can
prove useful in the grant writing space, namely, the practice
of “prims” (geometric primitives). Primitives are base objects
used in combination with other prims to create a more com-
plex object. These are “atomistic” objects that are at the
lowest common denominator. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Prims
Basic building blocks of a grant appli-
cation
Prims in a grant application context may be understood as
base units of information, of various modalities (text, still
visual, video, sound, data, dataset) and mixed modalities
(multimedia) that communicate core information for a grant
application.
The idea is that there are essential and necessary elements
in a grant application that recur, no matter what form the
grant application takes. In other words, prims appear in
grant applications across a range of application forms. They
may be presented in different orders, with different branching
logic. They may be reframed. They may be rewritten to focus
on different aspects. But they are fundamental to the essen-
tial grant application.
A grant application may be created top-down or bottom-up,
or some mix of approaches. A prims approach is a bottom-
up approach, in which the core elements are designed and
then brought into the grant application mix. Writing a grant
application from the original assigned form is a top-down
approach.
Added to the prims will be additional other information based
on the grant funder’s NOFO (notice of funding opportunity),
legal and regulatory environment, and other factors.
Building up a set of accurate prims
So what are some of these core basic units that recur across
different grant application types?
There are different ways to conceptualize prims. One may
be as a combination of information + modality. For example,
a resume in text form may be a prim. A professional biog-
raphy of a team member in text form may be a prim. A
budget data table may be a prim. A visual personnel chart
may be a prim. Et cetera.
If a grant application is made up of five core elements, prims
may be understood as fitting within these elements (at least
in a basic grant application). The five core elements (as
defined by the author) include the following:
1. The work design / work proposal (with core inputs, activ-
ities, outputs, and outcomes)
2. The work scheduling in alignment with the action period
of the grant funder
3. Staffing
4. Budgeting
5. Program / project evaluations
For the work design, prims may include the following: re-
search data table, research data visualization, a logic model,
organizational history, department history, photos, data sets,
geographical map, and the like.
For the work scheduling, the prims may include a filled cal-
endar, a timeline, a Gantt chart, and others.
For the staffing, the prims may include resumes, CVs, pro-
fessional bios, photos, personnel chart, and others.
18
(Prims...cont.)
For the budgeting, the prims may include budget tables,
different option sets, and others.
For the program / project evaluations, the prims may in-
clude research methodologies, analytics methods, institu-
tional board review forms, informed consent, data tables,
data visualizations, checklists, matrices, and others.
Standards for prims
The prims should be accurate and fact-based. They should
be designed consistently. For example, text prims may be
written in the third-person point-of-view (POV) and with a
professional tone. Data tables need to come with proper
names and README information. Data visualizations
need to follow the proper conventions of the form (in terms
of column and row headers, data cell representations, cap-
tioning / titling, and other factors).
They should be complete in and of themselves. They
should be understandable in a stand-alone way, but they
should also work well with other grant application ele-
ments, with proper transitions, labels, and other textual
surrounds. Some prims may be interchangeable with oth-
ers. For example, a data table may be expressed as a
data visualization.
Keeping the grant application prims
updated
Good practice in the grant writing space is to keep solid
and accurate records. These would include the core prims
which may be used again and again, as long as they are
kept updated. Images, videos, and audio recordings need
to be kept with metadata and media rights releases. Da-
tasets also have to be properly labeled and notated, to
remember what the data may be legally used for. Ideally,
contents will not be restrictive in the watermarking and in
the usage because these will result in make-work.
Prims identified by a higher level of
chunking?
Some may find it more useful to define prims at a higher
level of chunking. For example, some may find a high-level
prim for each of the five elements above.
Or the higher levels may be topical: organizational history,
organizational leadership, organizational culture, discipline
information, and the like.
Prims identified by modality?
Or prims may be conceptualized by modalities and mixed
modalities. There might be textual prims, still image prims,
map prims, table prims, video prims, slideshow prims, audio
prims, multimedia prims, and so on.
Conclusion
Whatever the case, however a team wants to define prims is
up to them as long as it fits a shareable conceptual model
among the team.
The idea is to find some core basic informational elements
of items that may go into a grant application, keep these
updated and ready to use for a grant application, and to
keep the ideas percolating for new and fundable work.
(Prims...cont.)
For the budgeting, the prims may include budget tables,
different option sets, and others.
For the program / project evaluations, the prims may in-
clude research methodologies, analytics methods, institu-
tional board review forms, informed consent, data tables,
data visualizations, checklists, matrices, and others.
Standards for prims
The prims should be accurate and fact-based. They should
be designed consistently. For example, text prims may be
written in the third-person point-of-view (POV) and with a
professional tone. Data tables need to come with proper
names and README information. Data visualizations
need to follow the proper conventions of the form (in terms
of column and row headers, data cell representations, cap-
tioning / titling, and other factors).
They should be complete in and of themselves. They
should be understandable in a stand-alone way, but they
should also work well with other grant application ele-
ments, with proper transitions, labels, and other textual
surrounds. Some prims may be interchangeable with oth-
ers. For example, a data table may be expressed as a
data visualization.
Keeping the grant application prims
updated
Good practice in the grant writing space is to keep solid
and accurate records. These would include the core prims
which may be used again and again, as long as they are
kept updated. Images, videos, and audio recordings need
to be kept with metadata and media rights releases. Da-
tasets also have to be properly labeled and notated, to
remember what the data may be legally used for. Ideally,
contents will not be restrictive in the watermarking and in
the usage because these will result in make-work.
Prims identified by a higher level of
chunking?
Some may find it more useful to define prims at a higher
level of chunking. For example, some may find a high-level
prim for each of the five elements above.
Or the higher levels may be topical: organizational history,
organizational leadership, organizational culture, discipline
information, and the like.
Prims identified by modality?
Or prims may be conceptualized by modalities and mixed
modalities. There might be textual prims, still image prims,
map prims, table prims, video prims, slideshow prims, audio
prims, multimedia prims, and so on.
Conclusion
Whatever the case, however a team wants to define prims is
up to them as long as it fits a shareable conceptual model
among the team.
The idea is to find some core basic informational elements
of items that may go into a grant application, keep these
updated and ready to use for a grant application, and to
keep the ideas percolating for new and fundable work.
19
Pursuing Multiple Funding Opportunities with
Orthogonal Projects
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on p. 21)
What is a grant application team to do if multiple potential
funding opportunities open up at about the same time? Let’s
say that the grant applicant team has a project in mind, and
that has been drafted already.
The deadlines are coming up quickly.
Multiple submissions…even if consid-
ered unethical?
Should they do a multiple submissions approach, which is
considered inappropriate? (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Multiple Submissions
[The multiple submissions issue involves submitting the same
proposal to several grant funders. Grant funders look on this
poorly because they do not want their grant funding to be
supplanted by others. They want original proposals going to
them, so if they do fund the work, they can acquire full return
on investment (ROI) from the output. Multiple submissions
are seen as deceptive on the part of the grant applicant.
Grant funders may choose to change their minds about fund-
ing a project if they find that others are also contributing
funds to the exact same project, without the grant funders
each being notified. Grant applicants may pursue “braided
funding” from multiple sources, but this should be done in an
open and aboveboard way.]
Expanding the vision for the proposed
project?
Another approach, one that has fewer challenges, is to go for
the braided funding route…by expanding the visions for the
proposed interrelated projects.
Instead of offering the same work to multiple funders, the
grant application team may consider expanding the work,
perhaps by adding different programs and projects to the
original endeavor. Perhaps the grants team may include oth-
er colleagues and off-campus partners to achieve other com-
plementary and particular aims.
Such additional projects may be somewhat interrelated be-
cause they are based on the same project. But they cannot
be designed with inter-dependencies. After all, there are no
guaranteed funds. And if these were designed with depend-
encies and a prior dependency is not funded, then the follow-
on projects will not be achievable. Each project track has to
be able to progress on its own.
Ideally, the respective projects should be
“orthogonal.” (Figure 2) In other words, the respective pro-
ject ideas should be at geometrical right angles to each oth-
Instead of offering the same work to multiple
funders, the grant application team may con-
sider expanding the work, perhaps by adding
different programs and projects to the original
endeavor. Perhaps the grants team may in-
clude other colleagues and off-campus part-
ners to achieve other complementary and
particular aims.
Pursuing Multiple Funding Opportunities with
Orthogonal Projects
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on p. 21)
What is a grant application team to do if multiple potential
funding opportunities open up at about the same time? Let’s
say that the grant applicant team has a project in mind, and
that has been drafted already.
The deadlines are coming up quickly.
Multiple submissions…even if consid-
ered unethical?
Should they do a multiple submissions approach, which is
considered inappropriate? (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Multiple Submissions
[The multiple submissions issue involves submitting the same
proposal to several grant funders. Grant funders look on this
poorly because they do not want their grant funding to be
supplanted by others. They want original proposals going to
them, so if they do fund the work, they can acquire full return
on investment (ROI) from the output. Multiple submissions
are seen as deceptive on the part of the grant applicant.
Grant funders may choose to change their minds about fund-
ing a project if they find that others are also contributing
funds to the exact same project, without the grant funders
each being notified. Grant applicants may pursue “braided
funding” from multiple sources, but this should be done in an
open and aboveboard way.]
Expanding the vision for the proposed
project?
Another approach, one that has fewer challenges, is to go for
the braided funding route…by expanding the visions for the
proposed interrelated projects.
Instead of offering the same work to multiple funders, the
grant application team may consider expanding the work,
perhaps by adding different programs and projects to the
original endeavor. Perhaps the grants team may include oth-
er colleagues and off-campus partners to achieve other com-
plementary and particular aims.
Such additional projects may be somewhat interrelated be-
cause they are based on the same project. But they cannot
be designed with inter-dependencies. After all, there are no
guaranteed funds. And if these were designed with depend-
encies and a prior dependency is not funded, then the follow-
on projects will not be achievable. Each project track has to
be able to progress on its own.
Ideally, the respective projects should be
“orthogonal.” (Figure 2) In other words, the respective pro-
ject ideas should be at geometrical right angles to each oth-
Instead of offering the same work to multiple
funders, the grant application team may con-
sider expanding the work, perhaps by adding
different programs and projects to the original
endeavor. Perhaps the grants team may in-
clude other colleagues and off-campus part-
ners to achieve other complementary and
particular aims.
20
Feasible Big Ideas
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
for the grant funder can dismiss the ideas as just talk. No
one wants to donate money for gab, the brag, the big claim,
the “big hat and no cattle”. They want return on investment
(ROI). They want to spend real money on real work with real
value. Too much of the mundane, and the external grant
evaluators may not be sparked by the creativity. Something
audacious turns heads. They spark memory. They create
excitement.
Figure 1. Big Ideas
So how do grant applicants walk the middle way between the
extremes of the audacious and the doable?
Local “big hairy audacious
goals” (BHAGs) / “money ideas”
It helps to first have a rational and objective sense of local
capabilities. [“Money ideas” for grant funders…require that
they are doable, actionable.] Then, it helps to have staff
brainstorm their work ambitions.
• What hard problems are there to solve in the disci-
It is said that grant applications may be won or lost based
on the core idea.
So-called “Big Hairy Audacious Goals” (“BHAGs,” pro-
nounced “bee-hags”), coined by Jerry Porras and James
Collins, can be the difference between outrageous success
and failure for corporations. That idea also can apply to
grant funding for particular types of discretionary (merit-
based vs. mandatory) grants.
If that is indeed the case, what can grant applicants do to
ensure their best big ideas come to the fore? And how can
they make sure these ideas—while spectacular—are still
doable, still feasible.
Going the middle way between dream
and practicality
How can an institution of higher education (IHE) identify its
BHAGs? After all, the ideas have to be spectacular…but
also doable.
• A middle administrator expressed a blue sky dream of
adding a second floor to the building she worked in.
• Another wanted a shed in which to park an old, donat-
ed firetruck.
• Another wanted to add a media room to the sports
stadium.
• Another wanted a private foundation to fund an imagi-
nary class that was supposedly going on at a local
correctional facility.
No doubt, people have various ideas on how to spend oth-
ers’ money. More important than the audacity of the dream
is whether the dream is executable, whether the IHE can
deliver on the work (within schedule) (within budget) (with
the available staff) and (to quality).
There is the saying, “Go big or go home.” (Figure 1) But in
truth, there is a necessary balance. Too much blue sky
dreaming and audacity, and the grant evaluators working
Feasible Big Ideas
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
for the grant funder can dismiss the ideas as just talk. No
one wants to donate money for gab, the brag, the big claim,
the “big hat and no cattle”. They want return on investment
(ROI). They want to spend real money on real work with real
value. Too much of the mundane, and the external grant
evaluators may not be sparked by the creativity. Something
audacious turns heads. They spark memory. They create
excitement.
Figure 1. Big Ideas
So how do grant applicants walk the middle way between the
extremes of the audacious and the doable?
Local “big hairy audacious
goals” (BHAGs) / “money ideas”
It helps to first have a rational and objective sense of local
capabilities. [“Money ideas” for grant funders…require that
they are doable, actionable.] Then, it helps to have staff
brainstorm their work ambitions.
• What hard problems are there to solve in the disci-
It is said that grant applications may be won or lost based
on the core idea.
So-called “Big Hairy Audacious Goals” (“BHAGs,” pro-
nounced “bee-hags”), coined by Jerry Porras and James
Collins, can be the difference between outrageous success
and failure for corporations. That idea also can apply to
grant funding for particular types of discretionary (merit-
based vs. mandatory) grants.
If that is indeed the case, what can grant applicants do to
ensure their best big ideas come to the fore? And how can
they make sure these ideas—while spectacular—are still
doable, still feasible.
Going the middle way between dream
and practicality
How can an institution of higher education (IHE) identify its
BHAGs? After all, the ideas have to be spectacular…but
also doable.
• A middle administrator expressed a blue sky dream of
adding a second floor to the building she worked in.
• Another wanted a shed in which to park an old, donat-
ed firetruck.
• Another wanted to add a media room to the sports
stadium.
• Another wanted a private foundation to fund an imagi-
nary class that was supposedly going on at a local
correctional facility.
No doubt, people have various ideas on how to spend oth-
ers’ money. More important than the audacity of the dream
is whether the dream is executable, whether the IHE can
deliver on the work (within schedule) (within budget) (with
the available staff) and (to quality).
There is the saying, “Go big or go home.” (Figure 1) But in
truth, there is a necessary balance. Too much blue sky
dreaming and audacity, and the grant evaluators working
21
(Orthogonal Projects...cont. from p. 19)
(Bigg Ideas...cont.)
(cont. on p. 24)
plines? The cross-disciplines?
• What research questions are extant and pressing in
the field? How can these questions be answered?
What may be learned from the primary research?
From the data?
• What are the needs of industry that may be met with
local work?
• What program modeling may be beneficial to the local
IHE but also the larger professional community? What
are ways to design work with positive downstream
effects?
• What collegial partnerships may be harnessed for the
ambitious and mutually beneficial work?
Notice that audacious ideas are not just about advancing
local programs. There have to be larger considerations
within the field and in the larger professional ecosystem
and community. While there has to be a local tie-in to moti-
vate the work, the investment has to go farther, beyond the
boundaries of the IHE.
Such ideas are not for “stockpiling” for the future. After all,
these are only actionable for a certain time and with certain
staff. Grant seekers must be ruthlessly realistic about what
is possible. They must be rigorous about ethics and avoid-
ing fraud…because false claims and pretenses are not the
stuff of winning grants.
Also, there are time limits for all grant opportunities. The
windows are opening and closing on opportunities, when
there is something to play for. [Ideas may be extraordinary,
but if there is not a potential pot of money to fund the work,
they remain inert. It is always slim pickings, so the IHE has
to be competitive and ready to move on any opportunity for
which they are eligible as an institution.] Topics and
themes for grant funding are also under constant change.
What is relevant in one year is usually not at all relevant the
next.
Conclusion
In general, the blue sky dreaming should be about 1 – 2 %
of the application and the feasibility piece should be about
98 – 99%. A little imagination and audacity can go a long
way. Like spice, a little flavors a lot. But that little bit has to
be the right idea to animate and illuminate the whole. After
all, the pieces and parts of a grant application package have
to be of a piece.
er. One proposal does not overlap another (or if there is
overlap, there is very little of that). The respective projects
should be uncorrelated, without any linear relationship with
the other. They are independent (vs. interdependent)
tracks.
Figure 2. Going Orthogonal
In a hypothetical example, let’s say there is an advanced
multimedia lab. Perhaps one grant application offers a set
of artificial intelligence trainings for the participants. Anoth-
er may involve the purchase of a new technology and
presentations related to the effective use of that technolo-
gy. Another project may involve the funding of a student
filmmaking series and a student film festival at the end of
the academic year. Each strand may somewhat contribute
to the success of the multimedia lab, but they are stand-
alone and not interdependent. (Each project will have its
own demands on the advanced multimedia lab, its spaces,
its technologies, its staff, and so on…but there are ways to
coordinate these if all the proposals are funded.)
(Orthogonal Projects...cont. from p. 19)
(Bigg Ideas...cont.)
(cont. on p. 24)
plines? The cross-disciplines?
• What research questions are extant and pressing in
the field? How can these questions be answered?
What may be learned from the primary research?
From the data?
• What are the needs of industry that may be met with
local work?
• What program modeling may be beneficial to the local
IHE but also the larger professional community? What
are ways to design work with positive downstream
effects?
• What collegial partnerships may be harnessed for the
ambitious and mutually beneficial work?
Notice that audacious ideas are not just about advancing
local programs. There have to be larger considerations
within the field and in the larger professional ecosystem
and community. While there has to be a local tie-in to moti-
vate the work, the investment has to go farther, beyond the
boundaries of the IHE.
Such ideas are not for “stockpiling” for the future. After all,
these are only actionable for a certain time and with certain
staff. Grant seekers must be ruthlessly realistic about what
is possible. They must be rigorous about ethics and avoid-
ing fraud…because false claims and pretenses are not the
stuff of winning grants.
Also, there are time limits for all grant opportunities. The
windows are opening and closing on opportunities, when
there is something to play for. [Ideas may be extraordinary,
but if there is not a potential pot of money to fund the work,
they remain inert. It is always slim pickings, so the IHE has
to be competitive and ready to move on any opportunity for
which they are eligible as an institution.] Topics and
themes for grant funding are also under constant change.
What is relevant in one year is usually not at all relevant the
next.
Conclusion
In general, the blue sky dreaming should be about 1 – 2 %
of the application and the feasibility piece should be about
98 – 99%. A little imagination and audacity can go a long
way. Like spice, a little flavors a lot. But that little bit has to
be the right idea to animate and illuminate the whole. After
all, the pieces and parts of a grant application package have
to be of a piece.
er. One proposal does not overlap another (or if there is
overlap, there is very little of that). The respective projects
should be uncorrelated, without any linear relationship with
the other. They are independent (vs. interdependent)
tracks.
Figure 2. Going Orthogonal
In a hypothetical example, let’s say there is an advanced
multimedia lab. Perhaps one grant application offers a set
of artificial intelligence trainings for the participants. Anoth-
er may involve the purchase of a new technology and
presentations related to the effective use of that technolo-
gy. Another project may involve the funding of a student
filmmaking series and a student film festival at the end of
the academic year. Each strand may somewhat contribute
to the success of the multimedia lab, but they are stand-
alone and not interdependent. (Each project will have its
own demands on the advanced multimedia lab, its spaces,
its technologies, its staff, and so on…but there are ways to
coordinate these if all the proposals are funded.)
22
Wherewithal to Respond to Critique
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
relationships with each other.
They can become more savvy in the grants space. They
can read grant NOFOs (notices of funding opportunity) with
increased sophistication.
They can improve their awareness and decision-making in
the grants marketplace.
They can choose to keep their respective egos out of it.
Learning from the grant application experience is what pro-
fessionals do. What they shouldn’t do is to go negative.
What does going negative look like?
How people respond to rejection will affect whether or not
they can compete in competitive spaces, like grant pursuits.
If they take a constructive approach, they will fight another
day. If not, they will count themselves out. Competition is
never a one-off. Competition is a long game, and those who
are survivors will take that perspective and play it that way.
What going negative looks like…
So what are some common mistakes that grants teams
make once they receive a rejection (which is not uncommon
at all). The percentage of grant applications funded is low,
typically in the low single digits in terms of percentage-
funded. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Shatter
In most cases, after a grant application has gone out, the
grant funder comes back with one of two responses:
• full funding (yes),
• or outright declination to fund (no).
In rare cases, pre-award, there may be a request for more
information (maybe)…along the way… Sometimes, there
is a partial yes, in terms of partial funding, for part of the
proposed work…but this is rare.
No, and that’s it
Outright rejection is a kind of feedback. Often, that feed-
back does not include any more in-depth critique, no ac-
cess to the evaluators’ notes, no access to the filled-out
assessment matrix or checklist, and no other direct in-
sights.
Grant funders rarely have an interest in explaining or de-
briefing. They are too busy to engage in hand-holding.
They are savvy to the legal liabilities in treating one grant
application team differently than others.
The grant applicant team is left to conduct its own analy-
sis.
Figuring things out from a distance
The team can review which projects got funded since such
information is often public. They can review what they
submitted and compare that to the funded grant applica-
tions.
The team can formulate new strategies. They can rework
their ideas, the work design, the work scheduling, the staff-
ing, the budget, and the program / project evaluation plan.
They can strengthen their store of data. They can look for
other opportunities.
They can strengthen their professional relationship with
the grant funders. They can strengthen their professional
Wherewithal to Respond to Critique
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
relationships with each other.
They can become more savvy in the grants space. They
can read grant NOFOs (notices of funding opportunity) with
increased sophistication.
They can improve their awareness and decision-making in
the grants marketplace.
They can choose to keep their respective egos out of it.
Learning from the grant application experience is what pro-
fessionals do. What they shouldn’t do is to go negative.
What does going negative look like?
How people respond to rejection will affect whether or not
they can compete in competitive spaces, like grant pursuits.
If they take a constructive approach, they will fight another
day. If not, they will count themselves out. Competition is
never a one-off. Competition is a long game, and those who
are survivors will take that perspective and play it that way.
What going negative looks like…
So what are some common mistakes that grants teams
make once they receive a rejection (which is not uncommon
at all). The percentage of grant applications funded is low,
typically in the low single digits in terms of percentage-
funded. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Shatter
In most cases, after a grant application has gone out, the
grant funder comes back with one of two responses:
• full funding (yes),
• or outright declination to fund (no).
In rare cases, pre-award, there may be a request for more
information (maybe)…along the way… Sometimes, there
is a partial yes, in terms of partial funding, for part of the
proposed work…but this is rare.
No, and that’s it
Outright rejection is a kind of feedback. Often, that feed-
back does not include any more in-depth critique, no ac-
cess to the evaluators’ notes, no access to the filled-out
assessment matrix or checklist, and no other direct in-
sights.
Grant funders rarely have an interest in explaining or de-
briefing. They are too busy to engage in hand-holding.
They are savvy to the legal liabilities in treating one grant
application team differently than others.
The grant applicant team is left to conduct its own analy-
sis.
Figuring things out from a distance
The team can review which projects got funded since such
information is often public. They can review what they
submitted and compare that to the funded grant applica-
tions.
The team can formulate new strategies. They can rework
their ideas, the work design, the work scheduling, the staff-
ing, the budget, and the program / project evaluation plan.
They can strengthen their store of data. They can look for
other opportunities.
They can strengthen their professional relationship with
the grant funders. They can strengthen their professional
23
(Wherewithal...cont.)
First, many just go passive and silent. They do not engage
in analysis. They do not figure out how to make the pro-
posed work design more competitive.
They do not want to apply for grant funding again. They
discount their own competitiveness. They take the rejection
personally. They do not see the grants marketplace as a
competitive space. They give over the power of judgment
about their proposal (and themselves) to strangers. They
simply lock up, and they slink away. They count themselves
out for the future without trying. They fail to find their inner
sense of fight. They fail to find their resilience. They bench
themselves. They do not approach the field of play again.
They felt self-deserving, and the world somehow let them
down.
Second, many start pointing fingers…at their competition, at
the grant funders, and at their own teams. These people
hobble not only themselves, but they try to hobble others.
Their blame-shifting and displacement of responsibilities
may assuage hurt feelings, but they do not make the lead PI
(s) and the applicant team stronger in the space. Some take
the frustrations and harass the grant funders’ grant manager
or others.
Wherewithal to address critique
If the anonymized evaluator matrix forms, checklists, review
forms, or other data is available, the team would do well to
analyze that thoroughly. If an outside reviewer is available,
their feedback should also be cherished. Remember, such
critique is rare. (Pre-application and post-application, such
feedback can be expensive.)
In the cases where substantive critique and feedback are
available, responding well to the rejection and the feedback
is important for competitiveness. Such feedback is often
rare.
Each feedback point should be viewed objectively:
• Could there have been more solid research offered?
• Could the writing tone have been made more profes-
sional?
• Could the work design have been improved? How?
• Was the work scheduling unreasonable? Infeasible?
• Was the best team seated for the work? Were there
gaps in the staffing?
• Could the budget be better detailed? More accurate to
the pricing in the marketplace? Set up to be able to be
vetoed by the grant funder?
• Is the program / project evaluation plan practical? Doa-
ble? Does it offer important information? Is the re-
search objective (vs. manipulated and subjective)?
Clearly, it would be better to have known prior to the submit-
tal of the grant application. But failing that, learning post-hoc
is better than not learning at all.
The submittal of a grant application is expensive not only for
the local grant application team but also for the grant funder
and the evaluators. Decisions are not made willy-nilly but
often undergo serious and systemic analysis and evaluation
to inform the decision-making.
A competitive team has to have the wherewithal to respond
to constructive critique and feedback, without going negative,
without going subjective, without going passive. Shutting
down is not the winning response.
Conclusion
It is important to form rational expectations of the grants mar-
ketplace and of each grant opportunity.
Those who can view grant rejections objectively and ap-
proach these with a cool head…will have better judgment
and better performance in the grants space.
In rare cases, pre-award, there may be
a request for more information (maybe)
…along the way… Sometimes, there is
a partial yes, in terms of partial fund-
ing, for part of the proposed work…but
this is rare.
(Wherewithal...cont.)
First, many just go passive and silent. They do not engage
in analysis. They do not figure out how to make the pro-
posed work design more competitive.
They do not want to apply for grant funding again. They
discount their own competitiveness. They take the rejection
personally. They do not see the grants marketplace as a
competitive space. They give over the power of judgment
about their proposal (and themselves) to strangers. They
simply lock up, and they slink away. They count themselves
out for the future without trying. They fail to find their inner
sense of fight. They fail to find their resilience. They bench
themselves. They do not approach the field of play again.
They felt self-deserving, and the world somehow let them
down.
Second, many start pointing fingers…at their competition, at
the grant funders, and at their own teams. These people
hobble not only themselves, but they try to hobble others.
Their blame-shifting and displacement of responsibilities
may assuage hurt feelings, but they do not make the lead PI
(s) and the applicant team stronger in the space. Some take
the frustrations and harass the grant funders’ grant manager
or others.
Wherewithal to address critique
If the anonymized evaluator matrix forms, checklists, review
forms, or other data is available, the team would do well to
analyze that thoroughly. If an outside reviewer is available,
their feedback should also be cherished. Remember, such
critique is rare. (Pre-application and post-application, such
feedback can be expensive.)
In the cases where substantive critique and feedback are
available, responding well to the rejection and the feedback
is important for competitiveness. Such feedback is often
rare.
Each feedback point should be viewed objectively:
• Could there have been more solid research offered?
• Could the writing tone have been made more profes-
sional?
• Could the work design have been improved? How?
• Was the work scheduling unreasonable? Infeasible?
• Was the best team seated for the work? Were there
gaps in the staffing?
• Could the budget be better detailed? More accurate to
the pricing in the marketplace? Set up to be able to be
vetoed by the grant funder?
• Is the program / project evaluation plan practical? Doa-
ble? Does it offer important information? Is the re-
search objective (vs. manipulated and subjective)?
Clearly, it would be better to have known prior to the submit-
tal of the grant application. But failing that, learning post-hoc
is better than not learning at all.
The submittal of a grant application is expensive not only for
the local grant application team but also for the grant funder
and the evaluators. Decisions are not made willy-nilly but
often undergo serious and systemic analysis and evaluation
to inform the decision-making.
A competitive team has to have the wherewithal to respond
to constructive critique and feedback, without going negative,
without going subjective, without going passive. Shutting
down is not the winning response.
Conclusion
It is important to form rational expectations of the grants mar-
ketplace and of each grant opportunity.
Those who can view grant rejections objectively and ap-
proach these with a cool head…will have better judgment
and better performance in the grants space.
In rare cases, pre-award, there may be
a request for more information (maybe)
…along the way… Sometimes, there is
a partial yes, in terms of partial fund-
ing, for part of the proposed work…but
this is rare.
24
No Director’s Cut
By Shalin Hai-Jew
A director’s cut refers to the director’s full vision for a film
or other media. It includes scenes that had been edited
out for the mainstream theatrical release. This version is
extended, artistically self-indulgent. The editing may be
different. The ending, too. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. A Director’s Cut
A “PI’s cut” of a grant application…
not…
For grants, there may well be director’s cuts, too. That
would be the version representing the principal investiga-
tor’s (PI’s) vision of the grant application, perhaps without
regard for the established limits of the grant application as
dictated by the grant funder.
A grant application that is submitted should never be the
“PI’s cut.” A grant application is not about ego. It is about
an application to compete for funding to complete particu-
lar valuable work.
A PI’s cut would likely overweight the application. Per-
haps there may be long resumes. Ideological expres-
sions. Other forms of excess. So many assume that a
grant application is the formal record of the grant applica-
tion team, and they will overload the grant application
package with larded-up CVs and resumes, program histo-
ries, and other ornateness.
Conclusion
It is important to keep grant applications grounded to the
real, focused, and succinct. The energy should go to proper
documentation. It should go to proper visioning for the work
objectives and the work design. It should go to what makes
the grant application competitive.
(Orthogonal Projects...cont. from p. 21)
Going transparent
The respective grant applications need to be clear about the
state of any ongoing projects, the multiple applications
(albeit with orthogonal proposed projects), and other facts.
There should not be any overclaiming of where the project
is at.
Conclusion
Multiple submissions are not considered appropriate for
grant applications. Each grant application should be stand-
alone and original, and it should not be submitted every-
where. If multiple funders’ NOFOs are to be pursued, it
should be with orthogonal projects for braided funding…and
should be transparently represented.
No Director’s Cut
By Shalin Hai-Jew
A director’s cut refers to the director’s full vision for a film
or other media. It includes scenes that had been edited
out for the mainstream theatrical release. This version is
extended, artistically self-indulgent. The editing may be
different. The ending, too. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. A Director’s Cut
A “PI’s cut” of a grant application…
not…
For grants, there may well be director’s cuts, too. That
would be the version representing the principal investiga-
tor’s (PI’s) vision of the grant application, perhaps without
regard for the established limits of the grant application as
dictated by the grant funder.
A grant application that is submitted should never be the
“PI’s cut.” A grant application is not about ego. It is about
an application to compete for funding to complete particu-
lar valuable work.
A PI’s cut would likely overweight the application. Per-
haps there may be long resumes. Ideological expres-
sions. Other forms of excess. So many assume that a
grant application is the formal record of the grant applica-
tion team, and they will overload the grant application
package with larded-up CVs and resumes, program histo-
ries, and other ornateness.
Conclusion
It is important to keep grant applications grounded to the
real, focused, and succinct. The energy should go to proper
documentation. It should go to proper visioning for the work
objectives and the work design. It should go to what makes
the grant application competitive.
(Orthogonal Projects...cont. from p. 21)
Going transparent
The respective grant applications need to be clear about the
state of any ongoing projects, the multiple applications
(albeit with orthogonal proposed projects), and other facts.
There should not be any overclaiming of where the project
is at.
Conclusion
Multiple submissions are not considered appropriate for
grant applications. Each grant application should be stand-
alone and original, and it should not be submitted every-
where. If multiple funders’ NOFOs are to be pursued, it
should be with orthogonal projects for braided funding…and
should be transparently represented.
Categories
EducationDownload
Download Slideshow Get the original presentation fileQuick Actions
Statistics
- Views 12
- Slides 24
- Age 53 days
Related Slideshows
11
TLE-9-Prepare-Salad-and-Dressing.pptxkkk
MaAngelicaCanceran
61 views
12
LESSON 1 ABOUT MEDIA AND INFORMATION.pptx
JojitGueta
45 views
60
GRADE-8-AQUACULTURE-WEEKQ1.pdfdfawgwyrsewru
MaAngelicaCanceran
76 views
26
Feelings PP Game FOR CHILDREN IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.pptx
KaistaGlow
68 views
![Jeopardy_Figures_of_Speech_Template.pptx [Autosaved].pptx](https://slidepub.com/thumb/5828/284015828.jpg)
54
Jeopardy_Figures_of_Speech_Template.pptx [Autosaved].pptx
acecamero20
38 views
7
Jeopardy_Figures_of_Speech.pptxvdsvdsvsdvsd
acecamero20
41 views