Academic Grant Pursuits newsletter - January 2029
ShalinHaiJew
1 views
24 slides
Oct 09, 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:
• A Long Debriefing
• What Makes for “Market Power” in the Academic Grants Marketplace
• Value-Added Sustainability
• Full-Surround Grant-Readiness for Near-Future Competitiveness
• Understanding an Applicant IHE
• Posing Relevant Res...
Slide Content
1
ACADEMIC GRANT PURSUITS
January 2029
A Long Debriefing
In this issue:
• A Long Debriefing
• …”Market Power”...
• Value-Added
Sustainability
• Full-Surround
Grant-Readiness for
Near-Future
Competitiveness
• Understanding an
Applicant IHE
• Posing Relevant
Research Questions
• Selling Access to
Experts and
Expertise
• Mundane Careers
without Grants?
• Different Focuses
at Different Phases
• About Grant
Application
Heuristics from
Grant Regulations
• Competing in the
Age of AI
• Getting Past the
Academic into the
Real
• Smarter Budgeting
• A Grounded
Imagination and
Grants
• Proposing Worthy
Work
• Confidentiality
Clauses
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Editor
Dr. Shalin Hai-Jew,
Grant Writer
[email protected]
The Academic Grant Pursuits newsletter started in May 2025. The various issues have been ante-
dated through early 2029.
About this informal newsletter
The personal intention for this newsletter was
to go through a debriefing from the many years
of work in the academic grants space, initially
as a college faculty and then as a course de-
signer for WashingtonOnline (WAOL) for a
course about grant writing. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. A Long Debriefing
Through the years, there has been much learn-
ing about grants, about how people approach
the money chase, about the dreams won and
the dreams lost depending on the funding decisions, about the common failure of human presci-
ence (and their sense of self-deservingness and of their conviction that they will be funded, no mat-
ter the odds).
The professional intention for this newsletter was to get the author’s learning in some documented
form for whomever will take the baton and run the next laps. This work involves both sprinting and
long-distance running. It requires speed, and it requires long-term persistence and tenacity.
Through the years, the author was been the recipient of much funding largesse for a number of
academic projects. She has had the benefit of working with many super talented individuals on
various grants teams.
Probably a fool’s errand
Things can turn on a dime. Projecting out years into the future about the grants space is probably
a fool’s errand. A new reality is emergent every moment. This work was not to foretell what is to
come but to share some snippets of foreshadowing that may or may not emerge. The balance has
to be hope + realism, together. It has to be imagination + groundedness.
Conclusion
Every time the newsletter seemed to be at the end of its run, some other ideas arose.
It has been a fun ride.
The world is big enough, and there are other things to chase than scarce money for colleagues’
ambitions and dreams.
ACADEMIC GRANT PURSUITS
January 2029
A Long Debriefing
In this issue:
• A Long Debriefing
• …”Market Power”...
• Value-Added
Sustainability
• Full-Surround
Grant-Readiness for
Near-Future
Competitiveness
• Understanding an
Applicant IHE
• Posing Relevant
Research Questions
• Selling Access to
Experts and
Expertise
• Mundane Careers
without Grants?
• Different Focuses
at Different Phases
• About Grant
Application
Heuristics from
Grant Regulations
• Competing in the
Age of AI
• Getting Past the
Academic into the
Real
• Smarter Budgeting
• A Grounded
Imagination and
Grants
• Proposing Worthy
Work
• Confidentiality
Clauses
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Editor
Dr. Shalin Hai-Jew,
Grant Writer
[email protected]
The Academic Grant Pursuits newsletter started in May 2025. The various issues have been ante-
dated through early 2029.
About this informal newsletter
The personal intention for this newsletter was
to go through a debriefing from the many years
of work in the academic grants space, initially
as a college faculty and then as a course de-
signer for WashingtonOnline (WAOL) for a
course about grant writing. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. A Long Debriefing
Through the years, there has been much learn-
ing about grants, about how people approach
the money chase, about the dreams won and
the dreams lost depending on the funding decisions, about the common failure of human presci-
ence (and their sense of self-deservingness and of their conviction that they will be funded, no mat-
ter the odds).
The professional intention for this newsletter was to get the author’s learning in some documented
form for whomever will take the baton and run the next laps. This work involves both sprinting and
long-distance running. It requires speed, and it requires long-term persistence and tenacity.
Through the years, the author was been the recipient of much funding largesse for a number of
academic projects. She has had the benefit of working with many super talented individuals on
various grants teams.
Probably a fool’s errand
Things can turn on a dime. Projecting out years into the future about the grants space is probably
a fool’s errand. A new reality is emergent every moment. This work was not to foretell what is to
come but to share some snippets of foreshadowing that may or may not emerge. The balance has
to be hope + realism, together. It has to be imagination + groundedness.
Conclusion
Every time the newsletter seemed to be at the end of its run, some other ideas arose.
It has been a fun ride.
The world is big enough, and there are other things to chase than scarce money for colleagues’
ambitions and dreams.
2
What Makes for “Market Power” in the Academic
Grants Marketplace
By Shalin Hai-Jew
If the “grants marketplace” is a competitive one in which
grant applicants duke it out to offer the most competitive
grant ideas, then it is likely true that there are differences
between the various competitors for the limited grant funds.
Not all competitors are equal in terms of how they can com-
pete and with what. Said another way, some grant appli-
cant institutions of higher education (IHEs) have more
“market power” than others. They are better positioned to
compete for grant funds than others.
Even if the playing field is level, the various entities have
different positions, learner populations, technologies, tech-
niques, capabilities, leadership, and resources…and so
compete differently.
A simple definition of “market power”
in the grants marketplace
In the larger marketplace, “market power” refers to a com-
pany’s ability to set the price of its products or services.
Those with high market power have wide latitude in price
setting.
Perhaps it offers products and services which are unique
and valuable in the marketplace. Perhaps it has a large
market share. Perhaps it has positive word of mouth and
brand reputation. Perhaps its leadership is charismatic and
positively attention-getting.
Those with low market power serve at the whim of the mar-
ket’s price setting. (Sellers of commodities, like farmers, are
often at the mercy of market ups and downs, world politics,
trade wars, and the like. They create important products, but
there is so much in the market that individual farmers are not
price setters. They have to sell at the competitive price level
or lose their buyers and their place in the market.) (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Market Power
So what is “market power” in the grants marketplace?
Understanding “market power” in the
grants marketplace
For an IHE, its “market power” in the grants marketplace
means that it can command attention and interest in its offer-
ings in the grants marketplace. Perhaps there are a number
of grant funders interested in partnering with the IHE. Per-
haps the respective grant funders are willing to partner with
other grant funders to offer “braided funding” to the IHE with
market power to make their innovations, research, program-
ming, and projects real.
What enables an IHE to have “market power”? Institutional-
ly, the IHE likely has a stellar track record in the fund-raising
and grants space. It has a track record of innovations and
research. It has the prestige and money to attract star facul-
ty, who bring a high sheen to their work and achievements.
It has strong leadership and systems that encourage risk-
(cont. on p. 4)
In the larger marketplace, “market
power” refers to a company’s ability
to set the price of its products or
services. Those with high market
power have wide latitude in price
setting.
What Makes for “Market Power” in the Academic
Grants Marketplace
By Shalin Hai-Jew
If the “grants marketplace” is a competitive one in which
grant applicants duke it out to offer the most competitive
grant ideas, then it is likely true that there are differences
between the various competitors for the limited grant funds.
Not all competitors are equal in terms of how they can com-
pete and with what. Said another way, some grant appli-
cant institutions of higher education (IHEs) have more
“market power” than others. They are better positioned to
compete for grant funds than others.
Even if the playing field is level, the various entities have
different positions, learner populations, technologies, tech-
niques, capabilities, leadership, and resources…and so
compete differently.
A simple definition of “market power”
in the grants marketplace
In the larger marketplace, “market power” refers to a com-
pany’s ability to set the price of its products or services.
Those with high market power have wide latitude in price
setting.
Perhaps it offers products and services which are unique
and valuable in the marketplace. Perhaps it has a large
market share. Perhaps it has positive word of mouth and
brand reputation. Perhaps its leadership is charismatic and
positively attention-getting.
Those with low market power serve at the whim of the mar-
ket’s price setting. (Sellers of commodities, like farmers, are
often at the mercy of market ups and downs, world politics,
trade wars, and the like. They create important products, but
there is so much in the market that individual farmers are not
price setters. They have to sell at the competitive price level
or lose their buyers and their place in the market.) (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Market Power
So what is “market power” in the grants marketplace?
Understanding “market power” in the
grants marketplace
For an IHE, its “market power” in the grants marketplace
means that it can command attention and interest in its offer-
ings in the grants marketplace. Perhaps there are a number
of grant funders interested in partnering with the IHE. Per-
haps the respective grant funders are willing to partner with
other grant funders to offer “braided funding” to the IHE with
market power to make their innovations, research, program-
ming, and projects real.
What enables an IHE to have “market power”? Institutional-
ly, the IHE likely has a stellar track record in the fund-raising
and grants space. It has a track record of innovations and
research. It has the prestige and money to attract star facul-
ty, who bring a high sheen to their work and achievements.
It has strong leadership and systems that encourage risk-
(cont. on p. 4)
In the larger marketplace, “market
power” refers to a company’s ability
to set the price of its products or
services. Those with high market
power have wide latitude in price
setting.
3
(cont. on the next page)
Value-Added Sustainability
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Most grant funders require that grant applicants include a
“sustainability plan” as part of their work proposal.
A “sustainability plan” involves a plan for the institution of
higher education (IHE) to ensure that the grant-funded work
is continued in time, even after the grant itself ends. In
other words, the IHE will fund the continuance of the pro-
gram, ensure that the program or project is moved into part
of the bureaucracy where it will be looked after, and the
like.
This short article argues that sustainability should not just
be about ensuring that the grant-funded project is main-
tained…but that there should be some value-added to the
work over time. What could this look like? (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Value-Added Sustainability
Basic sustainability applied to an open
-source online book
This short article uses an open-source online book hosted
on an open e-book platform as a hypothetical case.
In a typical sustainability context, the book materials (with
its multimodal contents) would have to be preserved over
time. If the book hosting system is no longer available, the
contents have to be ported over into a new system and in a
format that ensures that it is available for continuing use.
(That ask is not a small one. Those who work in the infor-
mation technology space will be clear why.) If the book is
available in multiple languages, the transferred text should
be available in those languages. If there is markup on the
back end, all of that should transfer as well. The alt-text in
imagery should carry forward. The digital preservation
should try to ensure a future beyond any of the “fast” fires
that may lead to obsolescence and lack of access. Trans-
coding is typically handled through automation, but some
elements may have to be addressed in part manually.
Basic sustainability may involve having a staffer assigned to
make fixes to the text as errors are found.
Perhaps there may be a publicity person who can release
the occasional press release to drive continuing traffic to the
resource. After all, a resource has to be used to have value.
It cannot just be available (online, findable, discoverable) in
an inert way in the world.
Value-added sustainability applied to
an open-source online book
In terms of value-added, the argument goes like this:
• The online text may be added to, with complementary
and fresh materials ever so often (and labeled as such,
so source citations may be accurate for those using the
text). Many open-source online book platforms enable
version control that can keep an accurate record of how
every HTML page and resource has been updated, for
the sake of accurate remembering and citation. Per-
haps there may be new chapters to build out the core of
the text. Perhaps new vetted datasets may be shared
from more contemporaneous research. Perhaps a cop-
yright-released dataset may be hosted as an additive
resource. The curated added materials may make the
work more valuable to a broader audience.
• Perhaps the book may be made available to other lan-
guages.
• Perhaps podcasts with known subject matter experts
(cont. on the next page)
Value-Added Sustainability
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Most grant funders require that grant applicants include a
“sustainability plan” as part of their work proposal.
A “sustainability plan” involves a plan for the institution of
higher education (IHE) to ensure that the grant-funded work
is continued in time, even after the grant itself ends. In
other words, the IHE will fund the continuance of the pro-
gram, ensure that the program or project is moved into part
of the bureaucracy where it will be looked after, and the
like.
This short article argues that sustainability should not just
be about ensuring that the grant-funded project is main-
tained…but that there should be some value-added to the
work over time. What could this look like? (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Value-Added Sustainability
Basic sustainability applied to an open
-source online book
This short article uses an open-source online book hosted
on an open e-book platform as a hypothetical case.
In a typical sustainability context, the book materials (with
its multimodal contents) would have to be preserved over
time. If the book hosting system is no longer available, the
contents have to be ported over into a new system and in a
format that ensures that it is available for continuing use.
(That ask is not a small one. Those who work in the infor-
mation technology space will be clear why.) If the book is
available in multiple languages, the transferred text should
be available in those languages. If there is markup on the
back end, all of that should transfer as well. The alt-text in
imagery should carry forward. The digital preservation
should try to ensure a future beyond any of the “fast” fires
that may lead to obsolescence and lack of access. Trans-
coding is typically handled through automation, but some
elements may have to be addressed in part manually.
Basic sustainability may involve having a staffer assigned to
make fixes to the text as errors are found.
Perhaps there may be a publicity person who can release
the occasional press release to drive continuing traffic to the
resource. After all, a resource has to be used to have value.
It cannot just be available (online, findable, discoverable) in
an inert way in the world.
Value-added sustainability applied to
an open-source online book
In terms of value-added, the argument goes like this:
• The online text may be added to, with complementary
and fresh materials ever so often (and labeled as such,
so source citations may be accurate for those using the
text). Many open-source online book platforms enable
version control that can keep an accurate record of how
every HTML page and resource has been updated, for
the sake of accurate remembering and citation. Per-
haps there may be new chapters to build out the core of
the text. Perhaps new vetted datasets may be shared
from more contemporaneous research. Perhaps a cop-
yright-released dataset may be hosted as an additive
resource. The curated added materials may make the
work more valuable to a broader audience.
• Perhaps the book may be made available to other lan-
guages.
• Perhaps podcasts with known subject matter experts
4
(Value-Added Sustainability...cont.)
(Market Power...cont. from p. 2)
may be added to the text.
• Perhaps some simulations and animations may be added
to the text.
• Perhaps data about the adoption of the open-source text
may be shared as part of the available metadata.
Essentially, the value-added part of sustaining a grant-funded
resource is to refresh the resource and to add valuable pieces
and parts and modules to it. (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Refreshing Resources
Conclusion
Clearly, maintaining an online resource can be challenging
given the fast changes to digital contents and platforms.
Adding value to the grant-funded resource, years out, can be
a challenge, especially as the originators of the resource may
have moved on. Clearly, whoever adds to the resource has
to be a subject matter expert. There should be some leader-
ship to ensure some orderly progression. If possible, though,
such an approach may affirm the value of “sustainability” in
an enriched definition.
taking, innovations, and grant seeking. It has a long history
of achievement. It attracts the best and the brightest from
the population of learners. Its grant-funded outputs can be
monetized through patents and direct sales. Such IHEs are
magnets for grant funding.
Conclusion
To acquire market power, an IHE has to earn it. It has to
build a competitive organization that has something to offer
the grants marketplace.
This does not happen by wishful thinking. It does not hap-
pen by making one or two smart hires. It takes smart lead-
ership year over year over year…to build up an organiza-
tional “machine” that can innovate and compete in the larger
world.
(Value-Added Sustainability...cont.)
(Market Power...cont. from p. 2)
may be added to the text.
• Perhaps some simulations and animations may be added
to the text.
• Perhaps data about the adoption of the open-source text
may be shared as part of the available metadata.
Essentially, the value-added part of sustaining a grant-funded
resource is to refresh the resource and to add valuable pieces
and parts and modules to it. (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Refreshing Resources
Conclusion
Clearly, maintaining an online resource can be challenging
given the fast changes to digital contents and platforms.
Adding value to the grant-funded resource, years out, can be
a challenge, especially as the originators of the resource may
have moved on. Clearly, whoever adds to the resource has
to be a subject matter expert. There should be some leader-
ship to ensure some orderly progression. If possible, though,
such an approach may affirm the value of “sustainability” in
an enriched definition.
taking, innovations, and grant seeking. It has a long history
of achievement. It attracts the best and the brightest from
the population of learners. Its grant-funded outputs can be
monetized through patents and direct sales. Such IHEs are
magnets for grant funding.
Conclusion
To acquire market power, an IHE has to earn it. It has to
build a competitive organization that has something to offer
the grants marketplace.
This does not happen by wishful thinking. It does not hap-
pen by making one or two smart hires. It takes smart lead-
ership year over year over year…to build up an organiza-
tional “machine” that can innovate and compete in the larger
world.
5
Full-Surround Grant-Readiness for Near-Future
Competitiveness
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on p. 7)
For an institution of higher education (IHE) to be supportive
of its employees (faculty, admin, and staff) in the grants
space, it has to offer full-surround support. After all, a sys-
tem is only as strong as its weakest point.
A system can be stressed as various grant applications go
through for processing and are stopped short of being
launched off-campus based on structural weaknesses, idio-
syncratic decision-making, excess fear, ineptitude, or other
challenges.
What it means to be “grant ready” is changing with the pull-
back in federal funding for the academic space. This short
article offers some brief ideas on how grant-readiness is
changing for an IHE to be competitive in the future that is to
come. [The understanding here is that change is non-
linear.] (Figure 1)
Figure 1. The Near Future
What full-surround grant-readiness
looks like for the near-future
Grant-readiness requires all the basics:
• The aware and supportive administrative leadership
• The bureaucratic units / offices supporting grant work
(IRB offices, preawards support, postawards support,
business savvy, legal counsel, institutional research,
and others)
• Some funding for matching funds and in-kind contribu-
tions
• Clear grant pursuit policies that are shared broadly
around the campus
• A culture of grant-seeking and grant-funded work
• And so on.
In addition to the basics, a full-surround grant-readiness for
the near future should include the following:
• The grant applicants need to be politically sensitive
and attuned to the federal executive, which is idiosyn-
cratic and punitive in their requirements.
• The grant PI and team should know that they have to
bring something of clear value to the table. They have
to also be able to raise money from the grant-funded
project, for a strong sense of financial ROI.
• The team has to be able to actualize a grant applica-
tion in short order. It has to be in a constant state of
grant-readiness.
• The grant application that is put forth has to be able to
pass muster with both computational assessments and
artificial intelligence (AI) assessments.
• Grant proposals benefit by contributing to workforce
development and job creation. The team will have to
be able to make this argument as part of the value of
the proposed work in the grant application.
• The team needs the ability to design and conduct re-
search and to analyze data effectively.
Full-Surround Grant-Readiness for Near-Future
Competitiveness
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on p. 7)
For an institution of higher education (IHE) to be supportive
of its employees (faculty, admin, and staff) in the grants
space, it has to offer full-surround support. After all, a sys-
tem is only as strong as its weakest point.
A system can be stressed as various grant applications go
through for processing and are stopped short of being
launched off-campus based on structural weaknesses, idio-
syncratic decision-making, excess fear, ineptitude, or other
challenges.
What it means to be “grant ready” is changing with the pull-
back in federal funding for the academic space. This short
article offers some brief ideas on how grant-readiness is
changing for an IHE to be competitive in the future that is to
come. [The understanding here is that change is non-
linear.] (Figure 1)
Figure 1. The Near Future
What full-surround grant-readiness
looks like for the near-future
Grant-readiness requires all the basics:
• The aware and supportive administrative leadership
• The bureaucratic units / offices supporting grant work
(IRB offices, preawards support, postawards support,
business savvy, legal counsel, institutional research,
and others)
• Some funding for matching funds and in-kind contribu-
tions
• Clear grant pursuit policies that are shared broadly
around the campus
• A culture of grant-seeking and grant-funded work
• And so on.
In addition to the basics, a full-surround grant-readiness for
the near future should include the following:
• The grant applicants need to be politically sensitive
and attuned to the federal executive, which is idiosyn-
cratic and punitive in their requirements.
• The grant PI and team should know that they have to
bring something of clear value to the table. They have
to also be able to raise money from the grant-funded
project, for a strong sense of financial ROI.
• The team has to be able to actualize a grant applica-
tion in short order. It has to be in a constant state of
grant-readiness.
• The grant application that is put forth has to be able to
pass muster with both computational assessments and
artificial intelligence (AI) assessments.
• Grant proposals benefit by contributing to workforce
development and job creation. The team will have to
be able to make this argument as part of the value of
the proposed work in the grant application.
• The team needs the ability to design and conduct re-
search and to analyze data effectively.
6
Understanding an Applicant IHE
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
• What is the relationship of the IHE with the larger com-
munities that it is part of? (news releases, media cover-
age)
• Who are some partners to the IHE? Donors? What
existing alliances are there? What about prior ones?
(news releases, media coverage)
• What sort of bureaucracy does the IHE offer to support
the grant work? An institutional review board? A busi-
ness office? A preawards office / a post awards office?
An institutional research office? (bureaucratic infor-
mation)
• What is the IHE’ track record with prior grants? Current
grants? (bureaucratic information)
• What is the IHE’s public reputation (not the PR ver-
sion…but what others say about the IHE based on their
own experiences)? (news releases, media coverage)
• \What is the organization’s trajectory into the near-term
future? The far-term future? What is its pace? Its mo-
mentum? Its drivers? Its directionality? Is it positioned
for the future that is to come or not? (Is it just surviving,
without a sense of vision?) (mixed information sources)
The core organizational data is based on evidence and facts
and data. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Core Organizational Data
A grant funder wants to know some core information
about an applicant institution of higher education (IHE).
The facts will let them know if the organization is reputa-
ble. They will let them know if it is well-run and guided by
effective administration. It will let them know of the IHE is
sufficiently “grant-ready” to support the grant-funded work.
It may indicate whether the school has a track record of
dealing with grant funds and whether it is sufficiently ca-
pable to deliver the proposed work, to quality standards,
under deadline, within budget, and without negative exter-
nalities (without drama). Or it may suggest a general
sense of direction on the various dimensions of interest.
Some of the basic facts include…
What a grant funder wants to know may include the fol-
lowing, at core:
• What is the IHE’s history? How long has it been in
existence? (founding documents)
• What is the IHE’s guiding documents like? Its mis-
sion statement? Its vision statement? Its values?
How well does the IHE align behind its professed
values? (mission, vision, and values statements)
• Where are the various branch locations? The places
where the college has programs? (maps)
• Who is the administrative leadership, and what are
their backgrounds? What is their reputation for deci-
sion-making? How are the policies set up for deci-
sion-making? Is there solid follow-through or not?
How are problems addressed? What about stresses
and pressures? (Board of Trustees and members
and member backgrounds, college administrators
such as the college president and the cabinet)
• What are the various academic and vocational pro-
grams the college offers? (programmatic data)
• Who are the learners? How many learners are
there? What are their demographics? (summary
data about the student body)
Understanding an Applicant IHE
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
• What is the relationship of the IHE with the larger com-
munities that it is part of? (news releases, media cover-
age)
• Who are some partners to the IHE? Donors? What
existing alliances are there? What about prior ones?
(news releases, media coverage)
• What sort of bureaucracy does the IHE offer to support
the grant work? An institutional review board? A busi-
ness office? A preawards office / a post awards office?
An institutional research office? (bureaucratic infor-
mation)
• What is the IHE’ track record with prior grants? Current
grants? (bureaucratic information)
• What is the IHE’s public reputation (not the PR ver-
sion…but what others say about the IHE based on their
own experiences)? (news releases, media coverage)
• \What is the organization’s trajectory into the near-term
future? The far-term future? What is its pace? Its mo-
mentum? Its drivers? Its directionality? Is it positioned
for the future that is to come or not? (Is it just surviving,
without a sense of vision?) (mixed information sources)
The core organizational data is based on evidence and facts
and data. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Core Organizational Data
A grant funder wants to know some core information
about an applicant institution of higher education (IHE).
The facts will let them know if the organization is reputa-
ble. They will let them know if it is well-run and guided by
effective administration. It will let them know of the IHE is
sufficiently “grant-ready” to support the grant-funded work.
It may indicate whether the school has a track record of
dealing with grant funds and whether it is sufficiently ca-
pable to deliver the proposed work, to quality standards,
under deadline, within budget, and without negative exter-
nalities (without drama). Or it may suggest a general
sense of direction on the various dimensions of interest.
Some of the basic facts include…
What a grant funder wants to know may include the fol-
lowing, at core:
• What is the IHE’s history? How long has it been in
existence? (founding documents)
• What is the IHE’s guiding documents like? Its mis-
sion statement? Its vision statement? Its values?
How well does the IHE align behind its professed
values? (mission, vision, and values statements)
• Where are the various branch locations? The places
where the college has programs? (maps)
• Who is the administrative leadership, and what are
their backgrounds? What is their reputation for deci-
sion-making? How are the policies set up for deci-
sion-making? Is there solid follow-through or not?
How are problems addressed? What about stresses
and pressures? (Board of Trustees and members
and member backgrounds, college administrators
such as the college president and the cabinet)
• What are the various academic and vocational pro-
grams the college offers? (programmatic data)
• Who are the learners? How many learners are
there? What are their demographics? (summary
data about the student body)
7
Much of the information that answers the above questions
should be well documented and at-hand…ready for usage
in various grant applications for the IHE.
In terms of preawards assessments and other forms of due
diligence, the grant funders will be looking for anomalies
and “hidden” information that is not publicized by the IHE.
Conclusion
Then, there is a need for other information based on the
particular program. There is a need for information about
the proposed work. Each piece tells a story…a story that
affirms moving forward with the grant funding or one that
disaffirms. (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Go or Stop
The typical setting is at stop, and it takes a lot to move a
grant funder to go.
(Full-Surround Grant Readiness ...cont. from p. 5) (Applicant IHE...cont.)
• And others
The surprises will likely have to be addressed with the pas-
sage of time and the emergence of other standards in the
impending grants space in the near-future.
Conclusion
All to say, the expectations of the field are changing in obvi-
ous and non-obvious ways. The KSAs needed to be grant-
ready in a full-surround sense is getting more complicated
and demanding all the time.
The grant applicants need to be
politically sensitive and attuned to the
federal executive, which is idiosyncrat-
ic and punitive in their requirements.
What are the various academic and
vocational programs the college
offers? (programmatic data)
Much of the information that answers the above questions
should be well documented and at-hand…ready for usage
in various grant applications for the IHE.
In terms of preawards assessments and other forms of due
diligence, the grant funders will be looking for anomalies
and “hidden” information that is not publicized by the IHE.
Conclusion
Then, there is a need for other information based on the
particular program. There is a need for information about
the proposed work. Each piece tells a story…a story that
affirms moving forward with the grant funding or one that
disaffirms. (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Go or Stop
The typical setting is at stop, and it takes a lot to move a
grant funder to go.
(Full-Surround Grant Readiness ...cont. from p. 5) (Applicant IHE...cont.)
• And others
The surprises will likely have to be addressed with the pas-
sage of time and the emergence of other standards in the
impending grants space in the near-future.
Conclusion
All to say, the expectations of the field are changing in obvi-
ous and non-obvious ways. The KSAs needed to be grant-
ready in a full-surround sense is getting more complicated
and demanding all the time.
The grant applicants need to be
politically sensitive and attuned to the
federal executive, which is idiosyncrat-
ic and punitive in their requirements.
What are the various academic and
vocational programs the college
offers? (programmatic data)
8
(cont. on the next page)
Posing Relevant Research Questions
By Shalin Hai-Jew
In the latter, the “program / project evaluation,” that is data
about how well the grant-funded work is performing in terms
of the targeted outcomes.
Not all research questions are created equal. Some serious
thought needs to go into the research questions and the
research design. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Research Questions
Asking the right questions
In terms of research design, it is important to…
• Ask the right questions
• In the right way
• With the right research methodologies
• To acquire the proper collected data
• n the right data formats
In a grant application, the proposed work always has to in-
clude a research element. Where does that come in?
Necessary research in a grant applica-
tion
Well, the five core elements of research include the follow-
ing:
• The work proposal
• The work scheduling (within the action period of the
grant)
• The staffing
• The budget
• The program / project evaluation
The two areas where research may come in would be the
“work proposal” and the “program / project evaluation.”
In the first, the “work proposal,” the research may be data
collection to enable feedback about the efficacy of the work.
It may be research that answers important research ques-
tions about the topic. It may be research that points to prop-
er management and other efficiencies.
One approach to identifying research
questions is to prime the mind(s) about
the particular discipline or space.
Brainstorm 10 questions. Rank order
them from the most to least important
(descending order). Evaluate. And
brainstorm again. Refine the
questions…
(cont. on the next page)
Posing Relevant Research Questions
By Shalin Hai-Jew
In the latter, the “program / project evaluation,” that is data
about how well the grant-funded work is performing in terms
of the targeted outcomes.
Not all research questions are created equal. Some serious
thought needs to go into the research questions and the
research design. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Research Questions
Asking the right questions
In terms of research design, it is important to…
• Ask the right questions
• In the right way
• With the right research methodologies
• To acquire the proper collected data
• n the right data formats
In a grant application, the proposed work always has to in-
clude a research element. Where does that come in?
Necessary research in a grant applica-
tion
Well, the five core elements of research include the follow-
ing:
• The work proposal
• The work scheduling (within the action period of the
grant)
• The staffing
• The budget
• The program / project evaluation
The two areas where research may come in would be the
“work proposal” and the “program / project evaluation.”
In the first, the “work proposal,” the research may be data
collection to enable feedback about the efficacy of the work.
It may be research that answers important research ques-
tions about the topic. It may be research that points to prop-
er management and other efficiencies.
One approach to identifying research
questions is to prime the mind(s) about
the particular discipline or space.
Brainstorm 10 questions. Rank order
them from the most to least important
(descending order). Evaluate. And
brainstorm again. Refine the
questions…
9
(Relevant Research Questions...cont.)
askable based on respected research methodologies. They
have to be asked in a way that is non-biased. (There are
various controls that need to be emplaced to ensure that
the research is not just an exercise in subjectivity and in
arriving at the desired data results based on manipulations.)
Those who have worked in the research space for a time
sense when the research questions and the research de-
sign are appropriate. (Figure 2) The research has to be
relevant, feasible, ethical, non-biased, and effective.
Figure 2. Exclamation Point
Conclusion
All to say, research is a critical element in grant-seeking.
This is so even for community colleges. There is no getting
away with, “Just take my word for it” in the grants space.
The research has to be worth the effort, the funding, the
collaboration, the shared expertise, and the ultimate publici-
ty. The research has to solve real-world problems.
Even in cases where the research is only a background ele-
ment, it is still important to ensure that the research ques-
tions are well conceptualized and the research well de-
signed.
It is important not to ask questions for which there is consen-
sus that the answer has already been arrived at. It is im-
portant to ask research questions that are relevant and
whose answers will have impact in the world.
The research has to be ethical. It has to benefit the stake-
holders and research beneficiaries. It has to be prosocial. It
has to bring solutions that do not also come with negative
externalities.
The research questions and research needs to emerge with
fresh and original primary data.
A brainstorming approach
One approach to identifying research questions is to prime
the mind(s) about the particular discipline or space. Brain-
storm 10 questions. Rank order them from the most to least
important (descending order). Evaluate. And brainstorm
again. Refine the questions…
Or start with the brainstorming of the 10 questions in con-
text. Cluster the questions by closeness. Is there a phenom-
enon or construct that is being evaluated?
Once the main areas of research are identified, the research
design has to be created. Research questions have to be
(Relevant Research Questions...cont.)
askable based on respected research methodologies. They
have to be asked in a way that is non-biased. (There are
various controls that need to be emplaced to ensure that
the research is not just an exercise in subjectivity and in
arriving at the desired data results based on manipulations.)
Those who have worked in the research space for a time
sense when the research questions and the research de-
sign are appropriate. (Figure 2) The research has to be
relevant, feasible, ethical, non-biased, and effective.
Figure 2. Exclamation Point
Conclusion
All to say, research is a critical element in grant-seeking.
This is so even for community colleges. There is no getting
away with, “Just take my word for it” in the grants space.
The research has to be worth the effort, the funding, the
collaboration, the shared expertise, and the ultimate publici-
ty. The research has to solve real-world problems.
Even in cases where the research is only a background ele-
ment, it is still important to ensure that the research ques-
tions are well conceptualized and the research well de-
signed.
It is important not to ask questions for which there is consen-
sus that the answer has already been arrived at. It is im-
portant to ask research questions that are relevant and
whose answers will have impact in the world.
The research has to be ethical. It has to benefit the stake-
holders and research beneficiaries. It has to be prosocial. It
has to bring solutions that do not also come with negative
externalities.
The research questions and research needs to emerge with
fresh and original primary data.
A brainstorming approach
One approach to identifying research questions is to prime
the mind(s) about the particular discipline or space. Brain-
storm 10 questions. Rank order them from the most to least
important (descending order). Evaluate. And brainstorm
again. Refine the questions…
Or start with the brainstorming of the 10 questions in con-
text. Cluster the questions by closeness. Is there a phenom-
enon or construct that is being evaluated?
Once the main areas of research are identified, the research
design has to be created. Research questions have to be
10
Selling Access to Experts and Expertise
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on p. 17)
A world-famous private university offers access to some of its
faculty for a price. Participating faculty work as subject mat-
ter experts (SMEs) and consultants. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Access to Expertise
The faculty may meet with founders of startups, outside re-
searchers, CEOs, world leaders, and others. Perhaps they
wrangle with hard problems and conundrums. Perhaps they
provide ongoing consultation and even participation on vari-
ous teams.
They have to have the savvy to offer something of value with-
out giving away true intellectual property (IP) and true com-
petitive advantage.
The university enables access to world-class minds to the
monied and the connected. They offer access to singular
talents. (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Singular Talents
The university has global cachet. Its brand is stellar and
pristine. The association alone may well be worth the cost of
the freight.
This short article explores this practice lightly…and ponders
whether such a model can be used at a community and tech-
nical college with different areas of professional expertise.
Selling access to community and tech-
nical college faculty?
A more common scenario at the community and technical
college level is a casual phone call or email asking for free
labor…such as a call to a grant writer to work gratis on a
community grant.
At present, there is no market set up for community college
expertise. In the hierarchy of higher education, community
colleges are very much of the community. The faculty are
seen as approachable. They are seen as knowing what
those in industry know…and perhaps sometimes less. (In
academia, the administrators go to the industry partners to
learn what is going on and what technologies and techniques
Selling Access to Experts and Expertise
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on p. 17)
A world-famous private university offers access to some of its
faculty for a price. Participating faculty work as subject mat-
ter experts (SMEs) and consultants. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Access to Expertise
The faculty may meet with founders of startups, outside re-
searchers, CEOs, world leaders, and others. Perhaps they
wrangle with hard problems and conundrums. Perhaps they
provide ongoing consultation and even participation on vari-
ous teams.
They have to have the savvy to offer something of value with-
out giving away true intellectual property (IP) and true com-
petitive advantage.
The university enables access to world-class minds to the
monied and the connected. They offer access to singular
talents. (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Singular Talents
The university has global cachet. Its brand is stellar and
pristine. The association alone may well be worth the cost of
the freight.
This short article explores this practice lightly…and ponders
whether such a model can be used at a community and tech-
nical college with different areas of professional expertise.
Selling access to community and tech-
nical college faculty?
A more common scenario at the community and technical
college level is a casual phone call or email asking for free
labor…such as a call to a grant writer to work gratis on a
community grant.
At present, there is no market set up for community college
expertise. In the hierarchy of higher education, community
colleges are very much of the community. The faculty are
seen as approachable. They are seen as knowing what
those in industry know…and perhaps sometimes less. (In
academia, the administrators go to the industry partners to
learn what is going on and what technologies and techniques
11
Mundane Careers without Grants?
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on p. 13)
A majority of those in academia never actually win grant
funding as a grant principal investigator (PI). Many may
benefit from operational funds from block grants. They
may benefit from technologies enabled by grant-funded
projects.
However, generally, they do not have the experience of
applying for and managing a winning grant. They do not
have the experience of proposing original work that is an
expression of their own professional dreams and compet-
ing hard to actualize the funding.
Are such career trajectories less interesting because of
this lack? Are careers more mundane and less interest-
ing? Maybe so. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Mundane
Putting in the time
For all the interesting work in academia, faculty do have to
“punch the clock” and to put in the time to teach and learn,
research, publish, and contribute to the larger society.
These are daily work practices.
While the stereotype is that some sit pretty with tenure,
tenure is not automatic. It is hard to win. It is a process
that includes winning over colleagues, who have a vote in
the tenure process in many cases.
Some faculty positions in higher education require a steady
stream of grant funding to maintain the position. Without
the fluidity of cash, careers dry up. People move on.
Something to contribute
In professional positions that require grant-funding, the idea
is that the individual has to do cutting-edge research that
has implications in the world. They have to compete global-
ly. They have to be able to wield the tools of research, data
analysis, publication, and conference presentations. They
have to get into patenting new materials and techniques.
They have to be entrepreneurial in the broader market.
Without these professional pressures, they will get out of
practice. They will not keep developing their knowledge,
skills, and abilities / attitudes (KSAs) in their chosen profes-
sion. They lose the sense of wonder about their profession
and stop asking relevant questions in the field. (Figure 2)
Mundane Careers without Grants?
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on p. 13)
A majority of those in academia never actually win grant
funding as a grant principal investigator (PI). Many may
benefit from operational funds from block grants. They
may benefit from technologies enabled by grant-funded
projects.
However, generally, they do not have the experience of
applying for and managing a winning grant. They do not
have the experience of proposing original work that is an
expression of their own professional dreams and compet-
ing hard to actualize the funding.
Are such career trajectories less interesting because of
this lack? Are careers more mundane and less interest-
ing? Maybe so. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Mundane
Putting in the time
For all the interesting work in academia, faculty do have to
“punch the clock” and to put in the time to teach and learn,
research, publish, and contribute to the larger society.
These are daily work practices.
While the stereotype is that some sit pretty with tenure,
tenure is not automatic. It is hard to win. It is a process
that includes winning over colleagues, who have a vote in
the tenure process in many cases.
Some faculty positions in higher education require a steady
stream of grant funding to maintain the position. Without
the fluidity of cash, careers dry up. People move on.
Something to contribute
In professional positions that require grant-funding, the idea
is that the individual has to do cutting-edge research that
has implications in the world. They have to compete global-
ly. They have to be able to wield the tools of research, data
analysis, publication, and conference presentations. They
have to get into patenting new materials and techniques.
They have to be entrepreneurial in the broader market.
Without these professional pressures, they will get out of
practice. They will not keep developing their knowledge,
skills, and abilities / attitudes (KSAs) in their chosen profes-
sion. They lose the sense of wonder about their profession
and stop asking relevant questions in the field. (Figure 2)
12
Different Focuses at Different Phases
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
The grants process really does offer a wide range of experi-
ences. This depends in part on the type of grant funding being
pursued…in what field… This depends on the team working
on the grant application and the development team for the
work. This depends on the institution of higher education
(IHE) and its administrative support and culture around grant
funding.
Those who have not been part of this process may be intimi-
dated because they do not know what to expect per se.
This short article provides some insights on what the grants
journey may look like. This is described as different phases,
with different focuses at the different phases. (Figure 1)
There are periods of intensifications and then periods of relax-
ation, periods of broad focuses vs. narrow focuses, periods of
high emotion and periods of calm, et cetera.
Figure 1. Different Focuses, Different Phases
Different focuses at different phases
A semi-sequential approach may be used. Simply put,
there is a preawards phase when the aspiring grant princi-
pal investigator (PI) is looking for grant NOFOs and other
opportunities. There is the awards phase during which the
grant funder decides which projects (and which grant appli-
cants) to fund. The postawards phase involves the work,
the reportage, the research, the data analysis, the confer-
ence presentations, and the publications. The postawards
phase is seen as including the post-grant phase, when the
final reportage has been completed. This prior information
depicts grant pursuits as a journey.
In the early phases of searching for grant opportunities, it
may feel like an open and loose period. The openness
means that the grant applicant is amenable to any number
of different directions in terms of selecting grant funders.
(And yes, it may be plural. The project conceptualized may
be supported with “braided” or multi-source funding.) The
looseness means going to various online, in-person and
other sources to look for opportunities.
If a grant NOFO looks promising, then the next phase in-
volves evaluating whether there is a fit between the grant
applicant and the grant funder. Are there shared profession-
al objectives and ambitions? Is the amount of funding per
project (the min-max range) sufficient for what the local
team is considering? Is the action period of the grant in
alignment with when the development team is available to
do the work?
If it is a yes, there is an intensification of work: research,
brainstorming the work design, planning, writing out the
Different Focuses at Different Phases
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
The grants process really does offer a wide range of experi-
ences. This depends in part on the type of grant funding being
pursued…in what field… This depends on the team working
on the grant application and the development team for the
work. This depends on the institution of higher education
(IHE) and its administrative support and culture around grant
funding.
Those who have not been part of this process may be intimi-
dated because they do not know what to expect per se.
This short article provides some insights on what the grants
journey may look like. This is described as different phases,
with different focuses at the different phases. (Figure 1)
There are periods of intensifications and then periods of relax-
ation, periods of broad focuses vs. narrow focuses, periods of
high emotion and periods of calm, et cetera.
Figure 1. Different Focuses, Different Phases
Different focuses at different phases
A semi-sequential approach may be used. Simply put,
there is a preawards phase when the aspiring grant princi-
pal investigator (PI) is looking for grant NOFOs and other
opportunities. There is the awards phase during which the
grant funder decides which projects (and which grant appli-
cants) to fund. The postawards phase involves the work,
the reportage, the research, the data analysis, the confer-
ence presentations, and the publications. The postawards
phase is seen as including the post-grant phase, when the
final reportage has been completed. This prior information
depicts grant pursuits as a journey.
In the early phases of searching for grant opportunities, it
may feel like an open and loose period. The openness
means that the grant applicant is amenable to any number
of different directions in terms of selecting grant funders.
(And yes, it may be plural. The project conceptualized may
be supported with “braided” or multi-source funding.) The
looseness means going to various online, in-person and
other sources to look for opportunities.
If a grant NOFO looks promising, then the next phase in-
volves evaluating whether there is a fit between the grant
applicant and the grant funder. Are there shared profession-
al objectives and ambitions? Is the amount of funding per
project (the min-max range) sufficient for what the local
team is considering? Is the action period of the grant in
alignment with when the development team is available to
do the work?
If it is a yes, there is an intensification of work: research,
brainstorming the work design, planning, writing out the
13
(Different Focuses...cont.)
(Mundane...cont. from p. 11)
work schedule, staffing the project, creating a budget, and
creating a program / project evaluation plan for the grant
proposal. This is a culminating moment of the search, when
a prospect has been identified…and the heavy work put in to
engage the prospect effectively.
Once the basic work is drafted, the proposal goes up the
administrative chain for final and formal sign-offs. (Earlier
approvals may have been attained less formally verbally or
by telephone or email.) Once the grant application package
has been submitted, there is a burst of elation…and then it
goes back to waiting…to hear back. There may be some
intermediary communications in this phase…or any of the
earlier phases as well. Getting to a period when a grant
application leaves the gravitational pull of the IHE is a mo-
ment to celebrate, given the many hurdles jumped…and
given the potential for dysfunctional politics and personalities
and decision-making.
Emotional “beats” at different junctures
Emotion is part of cognition. Human feeling is part of human
thinking.
In terms of emotional “beats” in a grant application, it may be
something like this: hope, anticipation, anxiety, fear, sur-
prise, anger, sadness, happiness, and gratitude. A lot of the
emotional outcomes will depend on the state of the grant
application and the binary decision by the grant funder.
(Figure 2)
Figure 2. Emotional Beats
Conclusion
Pursuing grant funding is not like taking on an addition side
hustle. The work is not unremitting per se… If a decision is
made by a grant funder to fund the work, though, that will
involve many hours spent on that funded work. Ideally, that
funded work will benefit the local work context and the de-
velopment team and make for improved new capabilities
and services and opportunities in the long run.
Figure 2. Research Questions
Conclusion
Various research projects do appear in the research litera-
ture without grant funding acknowledged that enabled the
work. Much work is done on the local dime…because the
work is necessary and contributory…and sufficiently low-
cost to fold into regular practice. All to say, those under
the constant pressure of grant funding are both in a posi-
tion of professional high pressure but also professional
privilege.
(Different Focuses...cont.)
(Mundane...cont. from p. 11)
work schedule, staffing the project, creating a budget, and
creating a program / project evaluation plan for the grant
proposal. This is a culminating moment of the search, when
a prospect has been identified…and the heavy work put in to
engage the prospect effectively.
Once the basic work is drafted, the proposal goes up the
administrative chain for final and formal sign-offs. (Earlier
approvals may have been attained less formally verbally or
by telephone or email.) Once the grant application package
has been submitted, there is a burst of elation…and then it
goes back to waiting…to hear back. There may be some
intermediary communications in this phase…or any of the
earlier phases as well. Getting to a period when a grant
application leaves the gravitational pull of the IHE is a mo-
ment to celebrate, given the many hurdles jumped…and
given the potential for dysfunctional politics and personalities
and decision-making.
Emotional “beats” at different junctures
Emotion is part of cognition. Human feeling is part of human
thinking.
In terms of emotional “beats” in a grant application, it may be
something like this: hope, anticipation, anxiety, fear, sur-
prise, anger, sadness, happiness, and gratitude. A lot of the
emotional outcomes will depend on the state of the grant
application and the binary decision by the grant funder.
(Figure 2)
Figure 2. Emotional Beats
Conclusion
Pursuing grant funding is not like taking on an addition side
hustle. The work is not unremitting per se… If a decision is
made by a grant funder to fund the work, though, that will
involve many hours spent on that funded work. Ideally, that
funded work will benefit the local work context and the de-
velopment team and make for improved new capabilities
and services and opportunities in the long run.
Figure 2. Research Questions
Conclusion
Various research projects do appear in the research litera-
ture without grant funding acknowledged that enabled the
work. Much work is done on the local dime…because the
work is necessary and contributory…and sufficiently low-
cost to fold into regular practice. All to say, those under
the constant pressure of grant funding are both in a posi-
tion of professional high pressure but also professional
privilege.
14
About Grant Application Heuristics from Grant
Regulations
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
• Media and publicity
• Copyright, intellectual property, patenting
• Accounting
• Accessibility (such as with universal design)
• And others
The above are not directly only about grant regulations, but
they all come into play in the grants space. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Grant Regulations
To maintain a heavy grant-seeking schedule, one has to
turn known grant regulations (and other applicable laws)
into heuristics, shortcuts that help with decisions.
Those outside of the grants space may be surprised at
how many rules actually apply.
Legal requirements across a range of
issues
Generally speaking, the applicable legal requirements ad-
dress a wide range of issues:
• Research design
• Human subjects protections
• Factuality
• Budgeting
• Expenditures
• Legal eligibilities
• Clean business practices
• Recordkeeping
About Grant Application Heuristics from Grant
Regulations
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
• Media and publicity
• Copyright, intellectual property, patenting
• Accounting
• Accessibility (such as with universal design)
• And others
The above are not directly only about grant regulations, but
they all come into play in the grants space. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Grant Regulations
To maintain a heavy grant-seeking schedule, one has to
turn known grant regulations (and other applicable laws)
into heuristics, shortcuts that help with decisions.
Those outside of the grants space may be surprised at
how many rules actually apply.
Legal requirements across a range of
issues
Generally speaking, the applicable legal requirements ad-
dress a wide range of issues:
• Research design
• Human subjects protections
• Factuality
• Budgeting
• Expenditures
• Legal eligibilities
• Clean business practices
• Recordkeeping
15
(Heuristics...cont.)
(cont. on the next page)
Figure 2. Grant Rule Books Pile
In other words, there is a high responsibility by the institution
of higher education’s administrators, business personnel,
grant seekers, grant writers, accountants, and those in-
volved in grants management. There is a role, too, for legal
counsel, human resources, and others.
Some basic heuristics in applying for
grant funding
It is important to practice walking the straight and narrow.
So what are some of the basic required professional practic-
es? They include the following.
If there are more specific contextual challenges, those may
come into play as well.
The Code of Federal Regulations
(CFRs)
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) are a body of law
that apply to federal grants to ensure that the preawards,
awards, and postawards are done in an above-board way.
Grant NOFOs have to be announced in a broad public way
and includes definitions of various applicant-types that are
eligible (based on the organizations’ tax status and other
authorizations). The grant awarding has to follow particular
laws, often based on contractual grant agreements. The
post-awards phase is governed by laws related to financial
management, property standards, procurement (for ser-
vices and products), regular reportage (for performance
monitoring), and record-keeping. There are guides for clos-
ing out a grant as well, in terms of finalizing budgets, finaliz-
ing reports, and ensuring that purchased durable equip-
ment is managed well.
The most important CFR for federal grants is 2 CFR Part
200. This is known as the “Uniform Administrative Require-
ments, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal
Awards” or Uniform Guidance. This code stipulates the
grant applicant’s need to abide by particular internal con-
trols to ensure proper financial management and handling
of resources. There are cost principles defined in terms of
allowable costs. There are definitions of audits for grants
above a particular amount in a fiscal year (FY). Different
federal agencies have additional stipulations. And particu-
lar grant competitions may have even additional other re-
quirements. (Figure 2)
(Heuristics...cont.)
(cont. on the next page)
Figure 2. Grant Rule Books Pile
In other words, there is a high responsibility by the institution
of higher education’s administrators, business personnel,
grant seekers, grant writers, accountants, and those in-
volved in grants management. There is a role, too, for legal
counsel, human resources, and others.
Some basic heuristics in applying for
grant funding
It is important to practice walking the straight and narrow.
So what are some of the basic required professional practic-
es? They include the following.
If there are more specific contextual challenges, those may
come into play as well.
The Code of Federal Regulations
(CFRs)
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) are a body of law
that apply to federal grants to ensure that the preawards,
awards, and postawards are done in an above-board way.
Grant NOFOs have to be announced in a broad public way
and includes definitions of various applicant-types that are
eligible (based on the organizations’ tax status and other
authorizations). The grant awarding has to follow particular
laws, often based on contractual grant agreements. The
post-awards phase is governed by laws related to financial
management, property standards, procurement (for ser-
vices and products), regular reportage (for performance
monitoring), and record-keeping. There are guides for clos-
ing out a grant as well, in terms of finalizing budgets, finaliz-
ing reports, and ensuring that purchased durable equip-
ment is managed well.
The most important CFR for federal grants is 2 CFR Part
200. This is known as the “Uniform Administrative Require-
ments, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal
Awards” or Uniform Guidance. This code stipulates the
grant applicant’s need to abide by particular internal con-
trols to ensure proper financial management and handling
of resources. There are cost principles defined in terms of
allowable costs. There are definitions of audits for grants
above a particular amount in a fiscal year (FY). Different
federal agencies have additional stipulations. And particu-
lar grant competitions may have even additional other re-
quirements. (Figure 2)
16
(cont. on the next page)
working on the up-and-up. It’s about ensuring that the grant
principal investigator (PI) and grants team can pass every
audit, every review.
The above serve as guardrails for proper grants practice.
(Figure 3) It helps to internalize professional practice to ad-
dress the basics and then to research further for more nu-
anced or complex issues.
Figure 3. Guardrails for Proper Grants Practice
Signatories on a grant application
To clarify, the lines of legal responsibility lead back to the
(Heuristics...cont.)
• Stay with the facts. Make assertions that have eviden-
tiary supports. Use clean logic. Do not mislead. Do not
commit fraud. Do not break trust.
• Follow the rules for research. Adhere to the human
subjects research standards for any research working
with humans (including surveys).
• Respect intellectual property (IP) laws. Respect copy-
right. Respect patents,
• Do not engage in nepotism. Do not take advantage of
undue privilege. Do not collude with others to acquire
the grant funding. Do not use insider information.
• Avoid sharing sensitive or protected information. Do
not share embargoed information.
• Treat others with respect. Do not defame anyone.
• Use accurate budgeting, in a line item way that allows
line item vetoes by the grant funder. Do not double-bill.
Do not over-bill. Do not count an expenditure multiple
times. Do not pad a budget.
• Ensure all information to be delivered publicly is not only
accurate but accessible.
The idea is to compete fairly, without organizational thumbs
on the scale. It’s about ensuring a fair exchange between
the grant funder and the grant seeker, value for value. The
idea is to apply professional ethics in every part of the work.
It is about having a legally defensible stance in the grants
space. In many ways, the above is about a kind of commo
sense. The above is about maintaining the golden rule: "Do
unto others as you would have them do unto you." It’s about
(cont. on the next page)
working on the up-and-up. It’s about ensuring that the grant
principal investigator (PI) and grants team can pass every
audit, every review.
The above serve as guardrails for proper grants practice.
(Figure 3) It helps to internalize professional practice to ad-
dress the basics and then to research further for more nu-
anced or complex issues.
Figure 3. Guardrails for Proper Grants Practice
Signatories on a grant application
To clarify, the lines of legal responsibility lead back to the
(Heuristics...cont.)
• Stay with the facts. Make assertions that have eviden-
tiary supports. Use clean logic. Do not mislead. Do not
commit fraud. Do not break trust.
• Follow the rules for research. Adhere to the human
subjects research standards for any research working
with humans (including surveys).
• Respect intellectual property (IP) laws. Respect copy-
right. Respect patents,
• Do not engage in nepotism. Do not take advantage of
undue privilege. Do not collude with others to acquire
the grant funding. Do not use insider information.
• Avoid sharing sensitive or protected information. Do
not share embargoed information.
• Treat others with respect. Do not defame anyone.
• Use accurate budgeting, in a line item way that allows
line item vetoes by the grant funder. Do not double-bill.
Do not over-bill. Do not count an expenditure multiple
times. Do not pad a budget.
• Ensure all information to be delivered publicly is not only
accurate but accessible.
The idea is to compete fairly, without organizational thumbs
on the scale. It’s about ensuring a fair exchange between
the grant funder and the grant seeker, value for value. The
idea is to apply professional ethics in every part of the work.
It is about having a legally defensible stance in the grants
space. In many ways, the above is about a kind of commo
sense. The above is about maintaining the golden rule: "Do
unto others as you would have them do unto you." It’s about
17
(Selling Access...cont. from p. 10) (Heuristics...cont.)
grant PI (principal investigator) through the bureaucratic
chain of command up through the president’s office and to
the Board of Trustees. These are the signatories on a grant
application. There are fewer signatories on the contracts
related to the grant agreement. Typically, the signers are the
president and perhaps the business VP.
Conclusion
In any complex work environment, it helps to constantly refer
back to the laws, the case law, the professional ethics, the
professional practices…to understand the proper rules of
engagement. (Figure 4) It helps to consult with legal coun-
sel, with ethicists, with professionals, before taking large and
important steps.
Figure 4. Rules of Engagement
are needed for students to learn.)
In many cases, the faculty at the colleges work long hours.
They may not choose to add a side gig to their professional
commitments.
Finally, it is unclear whether there is an actual marketplace
(with paying customers) for such consultations. In all likeli-
hood, such consultations may exist fleetingly and under the
guise of professional ties and “friendships.”
Community college administrators may not be able to fund
such an endeavor if it does not pay. The effort may not re-
sult in more than pocket change unless the college has
highly rare expertise across a range of fields. And all pro-
fessional endeavors involve some liabilities, which have to
be mitigated.
Conclusion
In the current moment, with so much focus on ways to bring
in hard cash, administrators are looking at various ways to
bring in funding. This idea may be out there as a curiosity,
an impracticable one, for community and technical colleges.
A world-famous private university offers
access to some of its faculty for a price.
Participating faculty work as subject
matter experts (SMEs) and consultants.
(Selling Access...cont. from p. 10) (Heuristics...cont.)
grant PI (principal investigator) through the bureaucratic
chain of command up through the president’s office and to
the Board of Trustees. These are the signatories on a grant
application. There are fewer signatories on the contracts
related to the grant agreement. Typically, the signers are the
president and perhaps the business VP.
Conclusion
In any complex work environment, it helps to constantly refer
back to the laws, the case law, the professional ethics, the
professional practices…to understand the proper rules of
engagement. (Figure 4) It helps to consult with legal coun-
sel, with ethicists, with professionals, before taking large and
important steps.
Figure 4. Rules of Engagement
are needed for students to learn.)
In many cases, the faculty at the colleges work long hours.
They may not choose to add a side gig to their professional
commitments.
Finally, it is unclear whether there is an actual marketplace
(with paying customers) for such consultations. In all likeli-
hood, such consultations may exist fleetingly and under the
guise of professional ties and “friendships.”
Community college administrators may not be able to fund
such an endeavor if it does not pay. The effort may not re-
sult in more than pocket change unless the college has
highly rare expertise across a range of fields. And all pro-
fessional endeavors involve some liabilities, which have to
be mitigated.
Conclusion
In the current moment, with so much focus on ways to bring
in hard cash, administrators are looking at various ways to
bring in funding. This idea may be out there as a curiosity,
an impracticable one, for community and technical colleges.
A world-famous private university offers
access to some of its faculty for a price.
Participating faculty work as subject
matter experts (SMEs) and consultants.
18
Competing in the Age of AI
By Shalin Hai-Jew
The grants space is changing. This means that there will
likely be evolving sources of funding from different industries
even as government pulls back (as it has been for decades,
although that process has sped up).
A major shift has involved the popularization of artificial in-
telligence (AI) and its sense of severe promise. It is thought
that new capabilities and markets will emerge from this. It is
thought that human employment is undergoing sea change,
with some jobs being lost and others being gained. (Figure
1) With all change, there are promises, and there are perils.
One has to take counsel of fears, address them, and move
on.
Figure 1. AI Job Market
Current Age of AI
Where will the opportunities for human labor exist? How will
people fit into the larger system? What knowledge, skills,
and abilities / attitudes (KSAs) will they need to bring to
bear? What will generate value in the new economy? What
markets exist to buy what people will create? How can peo-
ple position themselves for what is coming quickly? (Figure
2)
Figure 2. AI-Influenced Job Market
Conclusion
In the same way as individuals have to position themselves to
compete in a new economy, so too do institutions of higher
education (IHEs) to compete for resources, for constructive
attention, and for the privilege to compete relevantly.
Competing in the Age of AI
By Shalin Hai-Jew
The grants space is changing. This means that there will
likely be evolving sources of funding from different industries
even as government pulls back (as it has been for decades,
although that process has sped up).
A major shift has involved the popularization of artificial in-
telligence (AI) and its sense of severe promise. It is thought
that new capabilities and markets will emerge from this. It is
thought that human employment is undergoing sea change,
with some jobs being lost and others being gained. (Figure
1) With all change, there are promises, and there are perils.
One has to take counsel of fears, address them, and move
on.
Figure 1. AI Job Market
Current Age of AI
Where will the opportunities for human labor exist? How will
people fit into the larger system? What knowledge, skills,
and abilities / attitudes (KSAs) will they need to bring to
bear? What will generate value in the new economy? What
markets exist to buy what people will create? How can peo-
ple position themselves for what is coming quickly? (Figure
2)
Figure 2. AI-Influenced Job Market
Conclusion
In the same way as individuals have to position themselves to
compete in a new economy, so too do institutions of higher
education (IHEs) to compete for resources, for constructive
attention, and for the privilege to compete relevantly.
19
Getting Past the Academic into the Real
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on p. 21)
Competitive grant funders try to figure out whether the grant
applicant is in the first category or the latter with each pro-
posal.
• Is there a track record of grant achievements? Success-
ful follow-through?
• Or is there a track record of just talk? Is there just ex-
cuses-making instead of something real? Is there a
missing of deadlines? Is there a slide in standards?
The idea is to live in both the academic and the real. (Figure
2)
Figure 2. Academic + Real
A storytelling ploy to win grant funding
Some grant principal investigators (PIs) tell a story that they
think will win the money. They skim the grant NOFO and
mirror it back to try to create the impression that they are
Academia has a reputation for, well, lacking get-up-and-go.
It is seen as retiring. It is seen as working at a glacial pace,
in glacial time. It is seen as peopled by those who cannot
do: “Those who cannot do teach.” There is a divide be-
tween book smarts and street smarts. There is living in the
world of ideas instead of the physical real.
Those stereotypes are inaccurate.
However, given how prevalent those ideas are, grant appli-
cant institutions of higher education (IHEs) need to get past
that stereotype and show some real power to actuate and
to do.
A do or don’t-do situation
Essentially, in a grant-funded work situation, the local or-
ganization either does the work, or it doesn’t. There is of-
ten a think-do gap. In the thinking part, some conflate the
thought with the action, the thinking with the doing. They
have an abundance of vivid imagination that is unmoored
from the real-world. In the thinking, everything just works.
(Figure 1)
Figure 1. An Imaginary Machine
Getting Past the Academic into the Real
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on p. 21)
Competitive grant funders try to figure out whether the grant
applicant is in the first category or the latter with each pro-
posal.
• Is there a track record of grant achievements? Success-
ful follow-through?
• Or is there a track record of just talk? Is there just ex-
cuses-making instead of something real? Is there a
missing of deadlines? Is there a slide in standards?
The idea is to live in both the academic and the real. (Figure
2)
Figure 2. Academic + Real
A storytelling ploy to win grant funding
Some grant principal investigators (PIs) tell a story that they
think will win the money. They skim the grant NOFO and
mirror it back to try to create the impression that they are
Academia has a reputation for, well, lacking get-up-and-go.
It is seen as retiring. It is seen as working at a glacial pace,
in glacial time. It is seen as peopled by those who cannot
do: “Those who cannot do teach.” There is a divide be-
tween book smarts and street smarts. There is living in the
world of ideas instead of the physical real.
Those stereotypes are inaccurate.
However, given how prevalent those ideas are, grant appli-
cant institutions of higher education (IHEs) need to get past
that stereotype and show some real power to actuate and
to do.
A do or don’t-do situation
Essentially, in a grant-funded work situation, the local or-
ganization either does the work, or it doesn’t. There is of-
ten a think-do gap. In the thinking part, some conflate the
thought with the action, the thinking with the doing. They
have an abundance of vivid imagination that is unmoored
from the real-world. In the thinking, everything just works.
(Figure 1)
Figure 1. An Imaginary Machine
20
Smarter Budgeting
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
It is understandable for those new to grant-seeking to load a
large-scale project down with budgetary dross. Different
parts of the administration wants to pile on (such as HR).
Everyone wants to go greedy, to take the funding chance for
all its worth.
But, not surprisingly, to try to achieve funding, that instinct is
not the right one to take.
The better approach is for the applicant organization to eat
some of the cost.
What the smart money looks like
In an environment of self-dealing, an effective team has to
get past this to get competitive.
Back to basics, winning grant applicant teams need to offer
something of value, in alignment with what the grant funder
is requesting. Too often, local applicants offer canned pro-
posals with little to no ties to what the grant funder wants to
fund (as expressed in their grant NOFOs).
Instead of putting forward their best programs, grant appli-
cant institutions of higher education (IHEs) often put forth
their weakest, to fill budget holes. Outsider funders do not
want to fund a program that will disappear. They want those
that are robust and popular, with high foot traffic.
The smart money in a strong grant application…includes a
budget that shows burden-sharing, a sense of local respon-
sibility, a sense of local investment (with matching funds,
with in-kind contributions)…along with the passion for the
work. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Smart $
The investment is not only by the outside funder. The buy-
in has to be expressed by both organizations.
The grant applicant has to position the budget in a way to
advance the work without drawing away too much of the
resources. The local grant applicant has to fit in with the
larger culture of the grant funder. They will provide the man-
agerial smarts and labor to be the hands and feet, the body,
of the grant funder, where the funder’s money activates the
labor to achieve the proposed work.
The point of the external sponsorship funding is not to defray
local costs. It is not to supplant local budgets. It is not to fill
budget holes. It is not to “free-ride” the grant funder.
All work endeavors cost money. Grant funders will extend
funding if there is some trust and some good will. It is im-
portant for local administrators not to lose both or either from
those around them.
For a community and technical college, paying for adminis-
trative costs is seen as double dipping. After all, why does
HR have to be paid twice—once by regular budget and once
by a grant budget? That reads as self-indulgence by the
local IHE. A better message is to push the limits of the pro-
posed work to ensure that the work is successful and profes-
sional and effective.
But the local IHE is already at capaci-
ty…
A local IHE may come back and say: Well, bureaucratic
units are already at capacity. Instructors already teach 5
courses a quarter. (The industry average is 3.) Why would
the local institution take on more work unless it is recom-
pensed?
In such cases, it is then hard to justify pursuing extra work
through grant funding. If everyone is over-stretched, then
there is no wherewithal or head space to plan and execute
on the work. Period.
Smarter Budgeting
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
It is understandable for those new to grant-seeking to load a
large-scale project down with budgetary dross. Different
parts of the administration wants to pile on (such as HR).
Everyone wants to go greedy, to take the funding chance for
all its worth.
But, not surprisingly, to try to achieve funding, that instinct is
not the right one to take.
The better approach is for the applicant organization to eat
some of the cost.
What the smart money looks like
In an environment of self-dealing, an effective team has to
get past this to get competitive.
Back to basics, winning grant applicant teams need to offer
something of value, in alignment with what the grant funder
is requesting. Too often, local applicants offer canned pro-
posals with little to no ties to what the grant funder wants to
fund (as expressed in their grant NOFOs).
Instead of putting forward their best programs, grant appli-
cant institutions of higher education (IHEs) often put forth
their weakest, to fill budget holes. Outsider funders do not
want to fund a program that will disappear. They want those
that are robust and popular, with high foot traffic.
The smart money in a strong grant application…includes a
budget that shows burden-sharing, a sense of local respon-
sibility, a sense of local investment (with matching funds,
with in-kind contributions)…along with the passion for the
work. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Smart $
The investment is not only by the outside funder. The buy-
in has to be expressed by both organizations.
The grant applicant has to position the budget in a way to
advance the work without drawing away too much of the
resources. The local grant applicant has to fit in with the
larger culture of the grant funder. They will provide the man-
agerial smarts and labor to be the hands and feet, the body,
of the grant funder, where the funder’s money activates the
labor to achieve the proposed work.
The point of the external sponsorship funding is not to defray
local costs. It is not to supplant local budgets. It is not to fill
budget holes. It is not to “free-ride” the grant funder.
All work endeavors cost money. Grant funders will extend
funding if there is some trust and some good will. It is im-
portant for local administrators not to lose both or either from
those around them.
For a community and technical college, paying for adminis-
trative costs is seen as double dipping. After all, why does
HR have to be paid twice—once by regular budget and once
by a grant budget? That reads as self-indulgence by the
local IHE. A better message is to push the limits of the pro-
posed work to ensure that the work is successful and profes-
sional and effective.
But the local IHE is already at capaci-
ty…
A local IHE may come back and say: Well, bureaucratic
units are already at capacity. Instructors already teach 5
courses a quarter. (The industry average is 3.) Why would
the local institution take on more work unless it is recom-
pensed?
In such cases, it is then hard to justify pursuing extra work
through grant funding. If everyone is over-stretched, then
there is no wherewithal or head space to plan and execute
on the work. Period.
21
(Academic...Real...cont. from p. 19)
(Smarter Budgeting...cont.)
aligned with the grant funder’s objectives. They play to
sympathy. They think that if they got the money that they
would then begin the work, set up the possibilities. They
may not have the expertise, but they assume that some
illusion-making and “can-do” will substitute. There is a mix
of deceptions, other-deception and self-deception.
The real measure is actual performance in the real, without
substitutions, without pretend. (Figure 3)
Figure 3. On-Ground
Conclusion
Proposed grant budgets show important aspects of the appli-
cant IHE. Grant funders want to know if the grant budgets are
on- or off-target. (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Budgets on Target
A grant budget shows their conceptualization of how much
the outside organization will cover and what the local institu-
tion will bring to the table. It shows how efficiently the team
plans to work: costs to outputs (deliverables). It shows how
smart the budgeting is, in terms of efficiencies. Budgeting
also shows project priorities. Where does all the money go?
How is it spent? When are particular expenditures made in
the lifetime of the grant funding period? Is the full grant set
up to advance the project or not? Is the grant money going
to be spent on-target or off-target?
Academia has a reputation for, well, lacking
get-up-and-go. It is seen as retiring. It is seen
as working at a glacial pace, in glacial time. It
is seen as peopled by those who cannot do:
“Those who cannot do teach.” There is a di-
vide between book smarts and street smarts.
There is living in the world of ideas instead of
the physical real.
Those stereotypes are inaccurate.
Conclusion
In a grant funder-grant seeker pas de deux, each must pass
muster with the other side. In either case can one side as-
sume that the counter party is necessarily honest nor neces-
sarily well-meaning.
And? So?
Each side has the burden of responsibility to act ethically and
professionally. But that is not necessarily done either.
(Academic...Real...cont. from p. 19)
(Smarter Budgeting...cont.)
aligned with the grant funder’s objectives. They play to
sympathy. They think that if they got the money that they
would then begin the work, set up the possibilities. They
may not have the expertise, but they assume that some
illusion-making and “can-do” will substitute. There is a mix
of deceptions, other-deception and self-deception.
The real measure is actual performance in the real, without
substitutions, without pretend. (Figure 3)
Figure 3. On-Ground
Conclusion
Proposed grant budgets show important aspects of the appli-
cant IHE. Grant funders want to know if the grant budgets are
on- or off-target. (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Budgets on Target
A grant budget shows their conceptualization of how much
the outside organization will cover and what the local institu-
tion will bring to the table. It shows how efficiently the team
plans to work: costs to outputs (deliverables). It shows how
smart the budgeting is, in terms of efficiencies. Budgeting
also shows project priorities. Where does all the money go?
How is it spent? When are particular expenditures made in
the lifetime of the grant funding period? Is the full grant set
up to advance the project or not? Is the grant money going
to be spent on-target or off-target?
Academia has a reputation for, well, lacking
get-up-and-go. It is seen as retiring. It is seen
as working at a glacial pace, in glacial time. It
is seen as peopled by those who cannot do:
“Those who cannot do teach.” There is a di-
vide between book smarts and street smarts.
There is living in the world of ideas instead of
the physical real.
Those stereotypes are inaccurate.
Conclusion
In a grant funder-grant seeker pas de deux, each must pass
muster with the other side. In either case can one side as-
sume that the counter party is necessarily honest nor neces-
sarily well-meaning.
And? So?
Each side has the burden of responsibility to act ethically and
professionally. But that is not necessarily done either.
22
A Grounded Imagination and Grants
By Shalin Hai-Jew
dream real. The practicalities can turn an elusive and ab-
stract idea…into something actionable and real-world. Deliv-
erables can be attached to the work. There can be outcomes
based on these outputs.
The work design may ensure that necessary work is com-
pleted within the necessary time period with the available
staff and achieved to defined standards within the given
budget.
A grounded imagination is actionable. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Grounded Imagination
Conclusion
When wielding the imagination, it helps not to be fully carried
away. It is important to be informed by professional exper-
tise, research, common sense, and practicalities. An imagi-
nation cannot just be ideas isolated from the practical world.
The human imagination can inform the sparklet of an idea. It
can provide a sense of glamor and sell about the grant pro-
posal. But it cannot be the whole work proposal.
Ideas are “a dime a dozen”. Cheap stuff. Free, actually, in
most cases. It is what can be executed on …that is worth
grant funding.
The human imagination refers to the ability to generate new
ideas or concepts…not based on anything directly experi-
enced by the human senses (sight, smell, taste, touch, or
hearing). The human brain and mind can “image” or
“visualize” something that is not in the real world but in some
cases can be.
The human imagination is thought to provide a competitive
advantage because it can lead to innovations that do not yet
exist in the world.
The human imagination manifests differently to different peo-
ple.
Imagination in the grants application
For some, imagination may play a formidable forefronted role
in their work. For others, it may be a more subtle presence.
The imagination itself may be hidden. It may be non-obvious.
How the imagination interacts with reality is an important fac-
tor in grant applications.
Too much of it then goes to silly
An imagination can be maximalist. It can dominate waking
logic, cognition, and contravening data. It can supplant an
individual’s sense of the world. A person can go full fantasy,
without any grounding in reality. The projected dream can
overlay reality so thoroughly that it cannot be displaced.
In grant pursuit, an imagination can inform the grant applica-
tion with a dreamy sense of ambition…but the proposed ide-
as do not relate to reality. The grant application can be un-
moored. The grant funder, if they decide to fund such a prop-
osition, will be paid back in a fantasy, in many cases.
The dreamy leavening can infuse everything but not result in
a change in the real world. Ideas can be reified into a false
sense of reality, a waking dream.
A grounded imagination
An imagination that is informed by expertise and logic…and
is tied to reality…can be a powerful thing. It can be used to
inspire a work plan that describes the work that will make the
A Grounded Imagination and Grants
By Shalin Hai-Jew
dream real. The practicalities can turn an elusive and ab-
stract idea…into something actionable and real-world. Deliv-
erables can be attached to the work. There can be outcomes
based on these outputs.
The work design may ensure that necessary work is com-
pleted within the necessary time period with the available
staff and achieved to defined standards within the given
budget.
A grounded imagination is actionable. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Grounded Imagination
Conclusion
When wielding the imagination, it helps not to be fully carried
away. It is important to be informed by professional exper-
tise, research, common sense, and practicalities. An imagi-
nation cannot just be ideas isolated from the practical world.
The human imagination can inform the sparklet of an idea. It
can provide a sense of glamor and sell about the grant pro-
posal. But it cannot be the whole work proposal.
Ideas are “a dime a dozen”. Cheap stuff. Free, actually, in
most cases. It is what can be executed on …that is worth
grant funding.
The human imagination refers to the ability to generate new
ideas or concepts…not based on anything directly experi-
enced by the human senses (sight, smell, taste, touch, or
hearing). The human brain and mind can “image” or
“visualize” something that is not in the real world but in some
cases can be.
The human imagination is thought to provide a competitive
advantage because it can lead to innovations that do not yet
exist in the world.
The human imagination manifests differently to different peo-
ple.
Imagination in the grants application
For some, imagination may play a formidable forefronted role
in their work. For others, it may be a more subtle presence.
The imagination itself may be hidden. It may be non-obvious.
How the imagination interacts with reality is an important fac-
tor in grant applications.
Too much of it then goes to silly
An imagination can be maximalist. It can dominate waking
logic, cognition, and contravening data. It can supplant an
individual’s sense of the world. A person can go full fantasy,
without any grounding in reality. The projected dream can
overlay reality so thoroughly that it cannot be displaced.
In grant pursuit, an imagination can inform the grant applica-
tion with a dreamy sense of ambition…but the proposed ide-
as do not relate to reality. The grant application can be un-
moored. The grant funder, if they decide to fund such a prop-
osition, will be paid back in a fantasy, in many cases.
The dreamy leavening can infuse everything but not result in
a change in the real world. Ideas can be reified into a false
sense of reality, a waking dream.
A grounded imagination
An imagination that is informed by expertise and logic…and
is tied to reality…can be a powerful thing. It can be used to
inspire a work plan that describes the work that will make the
23
Proposing Worthy Work
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
The proposed work in a grant application is likely the core
differentiator about whether it is funded or not.
That assumes, of course, that the grant applicant has the
vision, wherewithal, skills, staff, resources, and time…to
achieve the work as proposed. This assumes that the pro-
posed work is itself feasible. If a work is infeasible, or if the
work is not achievable by the team (because it is too pie-in-
the-sky), then there is nothing to vote on…since a grant fun-
der is funding the work, not the idea alone. So assuming that
the work is doable, what do grant funders look for?
What the grant funder may look for is whether a proposed
work is “worthy.”
What is “worthy” work?
“Worthy” here means “worthy of consideration” and “worthy of
funding.” The idea is to compete for the first money, not the
last money. The first money is the competitive funding that is
a skim off the top of the available funds. The last money
would be the leftover funding once the most pressing and
important projects are funded. (All funding is welcome, but it
is better to win the funding for compelling ideas than not.)
Ideally, proposed work in a grant application is apprised as
proposing worthy work. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Worthy Work
A “worthy” work may be comprised of some of the following
features:
• It is a work that is novel and imaginative. It achieves the
work outcomes in a way that is different. It builds excite-
ment because of its fresh thinking.
• It is work that is relevant in that time period. It asks im-
portant questions. It provides or stands to provide im-
portant answers.
• It is work that solves a recognized real-world problem
with a creative and efficient solution.
• It is work that is worth the monetary investment by the
grant funder. The expenditures go towards the project
work, and resources are spent effectively. There is re-
turn on investment (ROI).
• It is work that has potential to benefit others—both direct
stakeholders and direct beneficiaries.
• It is work that matches the scope of the funding invest-
ment. The more money poured into the project, the
more potential that project has for solving problems,
creating value, and expanding skillsets.
• It is work that is grounded in the real. It is based on real
-world expectations.
• It is work that anticipates the future. It has value in time,
some durability. It has some staying power.
• It is work that expands the capabilities of the local insti-
tution of higher education. The capabilities are not only
short-term ones but also long-term ones.
• It is work that will result in products and services that
have value to the marketplace.
• There are ways to expand the learning from the re-
search and the experiences of doing the work…to aid
others in academia. There are amplifier / multiplier ef-
fects to be had that extend the impact of the grant-
funded work into the world.
• And others…
Proposing Worthy Work
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
The proposed work in a grant application is likely the core
differentiator about whether it is funded or not.
That assumes, of course, that the grant applicant has the
vision, wherewithal, skills, staff, resources, and time…to
achieve the work as proposed. This assumes that the pro-
posed work is itself feasible. If a work is infeasible, or if the
work is not achievable by the team (because it is too pie-in-
the-sky), then there is nothing to vote on…since a grant fun-
der is funding the work, not the idea alone. So assuming that
the work is doable, what do grant funders look for?
What the grant funder may look for is whether a proposed
work is “worthy.”
What is “worthy” work?
“Worthy” here means “worthy of consideration” and “worthy of
funding.” The idea is to compete for the first money, not the
last money. The first money is the competitive funding that is
a skim off the top of the available funds. The last money
would be the leftover funding once the most pressing and
important projects are funded. (All funding is welcome, but it
is better to win the funding for compelling ideas than not.)
Ideally, proposed work in a grant application is apprised as
proposing worthy work. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Worthy Work
A “worthy” work may be comprised of some of the following
features:
• It is a work that is novel and imaginative. It achieves the
work outcomes in a way that is different. It builds excite-
ment because of its fresh thinking.
• It is work that is relevant in that time period. It asks im-
portant questions. It provides or stands to provide im-
portant answers.
• It is work that solves a recognized real-world problem
with a creative and efficient solution.
• It is work that is worth the monetary investment by the
grant funder. The expenditures go towards the project
work, and resources are spent effectively. There is re-
turn on investment (ROI).
• It is work that has potential to benefit others—both direct
stakeholders and direct beneficiaries.
• It is work that matches the scope of the funding invest-
ment. The more money poured into the project, the
more potential that project has for solving problems,
creating value, and expanding skillsets.
• It is work that is grounded in the real. It is based on real
-world expectations.
• It is work that anticipates the future. It has value in time,
some durability. It has some staying power.
• It is work that expands the capabilities of the local insti-
tution of higher education. The capabilities are not only
short-term ones but also long-term ones.
• It is work that will result in products and services that
have value to the marketplace.
• There are ways to expand the learning from the re-
search and the experiences of doing the work…to aid
others in academia. There are amplifier / multiplier ef-
fects to be had that extend the impact of the grant-
funded work into the world.
• And others…
24
Confidentiality Clauses
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(Worthy Work...cont.)
The setting up of the proposed work requires expertise, the
relevant KSAs, an innovative spark, and professionalism.
The basic idea is that the work proposed in a grant applica-
tion has to be worthy of the grant funder’s investment, the
work team’s effort and collaboration, and other such inputs.
Conclusion
The worthiness of a work proposal in a grant application is
core to its value. That worthiness has to be based on vari-
ous dimensionalities of value—for problem solving, for fi-
nancing, for benefits to people, for future focus, and the
like. Running a “worthiness check” based on reality should
be an important part of grant writing and grant funding pur-
suit.
The work of grant evaluating is a sub rosa sort of task. It
is supposed to be done on the down low, on the profes-
sional quiet. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Sub Rosa
Why reviewing grants is a confidential
business
The work of reviewing grants…is a confidential business.
Those invited to evaluate grants have to agree not to spill
the beans on their work, on their own decisions, or on
those of peers. The idea is to enable evaluators to be as
candid as possible and to arrive at the best decisions pos-
sible.
Also, some of the ideas are truly cutting-edge. Or there
may be sensitive information or data in the grant applica-
tions.
There are many reasons why confidentiality clauses may
be set and enforced by grant funders. (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Confidentiality Clauses
Truth to tell, there are other reasons to avoid leaking infor-
mation. One is to avoid potential lawsuits or other hassles.
Opportunities to leak
Some may think that there are many invitations to share
privy information, but in most cases, there are not. Some
may spill to their online communities. They may brag. A lot
of leaks come in the service of ego. Many talk to just talk.
Some humble-brag. [In some cases, such brags may leave
a negative impression. It can be a turnoff. It can break
trust.]
Some may use the information to their own self-advantage
instead of for others’.
It is not the easiest thing to monetize sensitive information.
Conclusion
Many take the idea of confidentiality as a light suggestion.
They see it as a cheap thrill perhaps to play with sensitive
data.
From a person who has been in the grants space for dec-
ades, there are no benefits to talking out-of-lane. For a long
-timer, there is no thrill in compromising another person for
one’s so-called gain.
Confidentiality Clauses
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(Worthy Work...cont.)
The setting up of the proposed work requires expertise, the
relevant KSAs, an innovative spark, and professionalism.
The basic idea is that the work proposed in a grant applica-
tion has to be worthy of the grant funder’s investment, the
work team’s effort and collaboration, and other such inputs.
Conclusion
The worthiness of a work proposal in a grant application is
core to its value. That worthiness has to be based on vari-
ous dimensionalities of value—for problem solving, for fi-
nancing, for benefits to people, for future focus, and the
like. Running a “worthiness check” based on reality should
be an important part of grant writing and grant funding pur-
suit.
The work of grant evaluating is a sub rosa sort of task. It
is supposed to be done on the down low, on the profes-
sional quiet. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Sub Rosa
Why reviewing grants is a confidential
business
The work of reviewing grants…is a confidential business.
Those invited to evaluate grants have to agree not to spill
the beans on their work, on their own decisions, or on
those of peers. The idea is to enable evaluators to be as
candid as possible and to arrive at the best decisions pos-
sible.
Also, some of the ideas are truly cutting-edge. Or there
may be sensitive information or data in the grant applica-
tions.
There are many reasons why confidentiality clauses may
be set and enforced by grant funders. (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Confidentiality Clauses
Truth to tell, there are other reasons to avoid leaking infor-
mation. One is to avoid potential lawsuits or other hassles.
Opportunities to leak
Some may think that there are many invitations to share
privy information, but in most cases, there are not. Some
may spill to their online communities. They may brag. A lot
of leaks come in the service of ego. Many talk to just talk.
Some humble-brag. [In some cases, such brags may leave
a negative impression. It can be a turnoff. It can break
trust.]
Some may use the information to their own self-advantage
instead of for others’.
It is not the easiest thing to monetize sensitive information.
Conclusion
Many take the idea of confidentiality as a light suggestion.
They see it as a cheap thrill perhaps to play with sensitive
data.
From a person who has been in the grants space for dec-
ades, there are no benefits to talking out-of-lane. For a long
-timer, there is no thrill in compromising another person for
one’s so-called gain.
Download
Download Slideshow Get the original presentation fileQuick Actions
Statistics
- Views 1
- Slides 24
- Age 73 days
Related Slideshows
11
8-top-ai-courses-for-customer-support-representatives-in-2025.pptx
JeroenErne2
85 views
10
7-essential-ai-courses-for-call-center-supervisors-in-2025.pptx
JeroenErne2
77 views
13
25-essential-ai-courses-for-user-support-specialists-in-2025.pptx
JeroenErne2
76 views
11
8-essential-ai-courses-for-insurance-customer-service-representatives-in-2025.pptx
JeroenErne2
62 views
21
Know for Certain
DaveSinNM
36 views
17
PPT OPD LES 3ertt4t4tqqqe23e3e3rq2qq232.pptx
novasedanayoga46
41 views