Academic Grant Pursuits newsletter - November 2028

This antedated newsletter contains the following articles:

• Identifying Transferable Learning from a Grant-Funded Project
• Top Ten Sanity Checks to Run on a Draft Grant Application (for Showstoppers)
• Making an External Reputation
• Mapping the Grants Potential of an IHE
• Actual Risk-Taking in Grant Seeking
• Debriefing the Grant Writing Support Service
• Job Hunting in the Grants Space
• Competitive Advantages in the Grants Space
• A Politically Correct Grant Application
• Work Design
• Multiplier Effects
• What to Hold Back
• Politically Sensitive Parts of a Grant Application
• Right-Sizing in the Meantime
• Grant Funding Track Records
• Amateur Grant Writing

1. 1
ACADEMIC GRANT PURSUITS
November 2028
Identifying Transferable Learning from a
Grant-Funded Project
In this issue:

• Identifying
Transferable
Learning from a
Grant-Funded
Project
• Top Ten Sanity
Checks to Run on a
Draft Grant
Application (for
Showstoppers)
• Making an External
Reputation
• Mapping the Grants
Potential of an IHE
• Actual Risk-Taking
in Grant Seeking
• Debriefing the
Grant Writing
Support Service
• Job Hunting in the
Grants Space
• Competitive
Advantages in the
Grants Space
• A Politically Correct
Grant Application
• Work Design
• Multiplier Effects
• What to Hold Back
• Politically Sensitive
Parts of a Grant
Application
• Right-Sizing in the
Meantime
• Grant Funding
Track Records
• Amateur Grant
Writing
(cont. on p. 3)
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Editor
Dr. Shalin Hai-Jew,
Grant Writer
[email protected]
Wherever grant funding comes from—whether taxpayer taxes, corporate profits, nonprofit holdings,
or somewhere else—it is a tight resource.
Part of the argument for a solid return-on-investment (ROI) involves learning from the grant-funded
work and broadcasting that learning to others through conference presentations, academic publish-
ing, media publicity, and other channels. That transferable learning can extend the work and benefit
others as well. (Figure 1)

Figure 1. Transferable Learning

What is transferable learning?

Transferable learning is some knowledge that others
may inherit and use in their own local contexts.

• How was a problem was solved effectively? What techniques and technologies were used?
How well did the solution hold over time?
• What new tool was developed to solve a problem? How was that tool validated (for construct
validity…for reliability)?
• How was a professional collaboration (or even a consortium) used to solve a larger problem?

How should the transferable learning be applied within a domain or discipline or industry? What
about outside that domain…?

2. 2
Top Ten Sanity Checks to Run on a Draft Grant
Application (for Showstoppers)
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
A “sanity check” refers to an assessment to see whether
particular data may be true. This sort of test will not catch
every possible error. It is a quick-and-dirty review to catch
errors and irrationalities. (Figure 1)

Figure 1. Sanity Checks


In a draft grant application context, a sanity check is run to
identify any major part of the application that may be a
“showstopper” for possible funding. A “showstopper” can be
grant-ending. As such, anything identified will provide areas
to review and revise.


Top 10 “sanity checks” for draft grant
applications (in descending order)

1. The Work Proposal: Does the proposed work offer an
actual solution to a relevant problem? Is there an actual
value proposition to the work proposal? Does the work pro-
posal offer some new technique or technology or approach?
Or some combination?
2. The Workplan’s Timeline: Does the work plan’s timeline
make sense? Is there sufficient time to achieve the work…to
standard? Or are the assumptions about the work too opti-
mistic?
3. The Staffing: Does the seated staff have the professional
KSAs (knowledge, skills, and abilities) to do the work? Are
there gaps in staffing? Is there a Dunning-Kruger effect go-
ing on?
4. The Project / Program Budget: Does the budget make
sense? Are there sufficient funds to cover the project (along
with the institution of higher education’s contributions of fi-
nancial matches and in-kind contributions)? Or on the other
hand, is the budget padded? Excessive? Untrustworthy?
5. The Project / Program Evaluation Plan: Does the pro-
ject / program evaluation plan make sense? Are there eval-
uators set up to do the work? Will the plan result in relevant
metrics? Is the research set up to be objective and trustwor-
thy?
6. Rigorous Legality: Does the proposed work in the grant
application stand up to regulatory oversight? Audit? Is it
legal? Ethical?
7. Political Neutrality: Is the grant application politically
neutral? Politically correct (based on the requirements of the
federal executive and the funding agency)?
8. Administrative Support, Partnering with the Rest of
Campus: Will the grant application have the support of ad-
ministration? Facilities? Will it have an all-of-institution sup-
port?
9. Local Grant Project Leadership: Is the grant principal
investigator (PI) capable? Do they have the wherewithal to
lead the project? To follow through to success over a long
period of time?
10. Partners: How solid are the off-campus partners? The
local businesses? The nonprofit organizations? Do they
each bring value (with minimal risk)?

A bonus sanity check: What are the wildcard factors? Po-

3. 3
(Transferable Learning ...cont. from p. 1)
(Sanity Checks...cont.)
tential black swan events?

Any one of the above may be a showstopper. (Figure 2)
Or any combination, for that matter. In some ways, grant
applications can be fairly fragile.

Figure 2. Showstopper

Conclusion

The grant application team may get so caught up in the
work that they miss obvious errors Time pressures may
also lead to concerning oversights. Their focus is else-
where. Or they may have assumptions that they haven’t
fully pressure-tested.
A sanity check is important to conduct on a draft grant ap-
plication, in time to correct for errors. If these are not
caught in time, and in the hands of a tough grant funding
evaluator, the show really does stop. The grant application
may be stopped in its tracks and is then no longer consid-
ered for funding from that particular grant funding oppor-
tunity.
Ensuring a smooth handoff and public
usage
To ensure a smooth handoff, it helps to document the context
and methods well. How was the transferable learning ac-
quired? What are its strengths and weaknesses?
If there is a set of technologies that go with the handoff, those
should be shared with thorough documentation (such as
through a README file). There should be clear directions on
the sharing should be done. There should be information on
how the resource(s) should be inherited and applied. There
should be a clear name for the tool and proper citation meth-
ods for those who may want to review the tool in publication,
give credit to the originators of the tool, or add some module
to it. There should be legal releases of the tool for free and
broad public use, if that is the intention of the originators (and
if they have legal standing to do so).
Conclusion

Transferable learning is sometimes an outcome of grant-
funded work. Such a benefit should be made available to
others if the grant funders stipulate that sharing…and even if
they do not necessarily directly require this.

4. 4
Making an External Reputation
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on p. 15)
Institutions of higher education (IHE) that would pursue fund-
ing from external sponsorships (like grants) do well to have a
solid public reputation.
This reputation should emphasize the college’s capabilities,
competence, professionalism, prosocial standing, and follow-
through. It should include “virtue signaling” and professional
ethics.
This public reputation is created by the IHE and by those who
have experiences working with that IHE.

IHEs and their impression management

IHEs all have offices for public relations. These offices man-
age the public-facing demeanor of the organization. They
release “news” via press releases (textual, audio, video).
They manage the impression of the IHEs. (Figure 1)

Figure 1. Impression Management


The challenge is that there is not one voice depicting an IHE
but multiple voices from a range of perspectives. There is
endless online collection of information and a resulting world
of data. (Figure 2)

Figure 2. A World of Data


Not all depictions align with the IHEs preferred sense of
itself. And no IHE has full control on its appearance.

The effect of grant seeking on an
IHE’s reputation

Grant seeking, contrary to some inaccurate understandings,
is a fairly public phenomenon. Grant funders will often post
applications publicly for public comment (albeit with the re-
daction of confidential information). Misrepresentations may
be called out by other competitors. They may be ferreted
out by the grant funder doing due diligence.
Grantees often have the names of their projects, the ab-
stracts, and the amounts awarded posted publicly.

5. 5
(cont. on p. 15)
Mapping the Grants Potential of an IHE
By Shalin Hai-Jew
A majority of institutions of higher education (IHEs) requires
external sponsorships (grants) to (1) survive and to (2) ad-
vance various programmatic initiatives. The grants portfoli-
os of the IHEs vary depending on what the organizations
can acquire and keep in the grants space.
While many have dreams of raking it in, based on self-
deservingness, there are some limits to what a grant appli-
cant can acquire. The potential for grant funding exists in the
overlap between the grant funder interests and the grant
applicant’s capabilities (visualize a Venn diagram).
The grants potential of an organization depends on the
IHE’s enablements and constraints. (Figure 1)


Figure 1. Grants Potential


Not a universe of possibilities for grant
funding

It is important to arrive at a rational understanding of what
the capabilities of an institution of higher education (IHE) are
in the grants space.
Said another way, there is not a universe of possibilities for
grant funding. The potential for each is limited by various
factors:
• Its positionality based on the services (curriculum,
courses, trainings, events, publications, sports events,
and others)
• Its positionality based on the leadership (and the organ-
izational culture)
• Its positionality based on physical geography
• Its positionality based on its community ties
• Its positionality based on its partnerships with industry
• Its positionality based on its facilities and equipment
• Its positionality based on administrative and faculty
talent (particularly movers and shakers with serious
skillsets and professional connections)

And so on. Taking inventory of the organization is important
to understand true competitiveness.
Grant possibilities exist along the organization’s and its vari-
ous programs’ paths of travel. In other words, what equip-
ment and technologies are of interest for the various bu-
reaucratic units? What research? What professional
events? What collaborations? What alignment of local in-
terests and grant funder interests?

A rational understanding of potentials
in the grants space

The IHE’s positionality does not exist in an inert or passive
sense. The IHE has to fund investments in grants pursuit.
That would include the preawards and postawards function-
alities.
It has to train staff in grants pursuit and encourage that en-
deavor. It has to promote a sense of hope in a competitive
space with very low win-rates (in the single digits, in most
cases).
It has to enable staff to have some room to grow profession-
ally, think innovatively, and pursue advances to their work
and their programs.

6. 6
Actual Risk-Taking in Grant Seeking
By Shalin Hai-Jew
In an institution of higher education (IHE), it is always a mi-
nority that has the initiative to pursue grant funding. A ma-
jority of faculty and staff seem to stand on the sidelines.
This is true even in Research 1 universities, based on dec-
ades of experiences in higher education. (Figure 1)

Figure 1. Off the Sidelines

Part of the reason may be because there is not a lot of grant
funding out there (especially not for particular areas). Part
of it may be that the focus of the local leadership is more on
teaching than on research. Perhaps part of it is because
there is not a lot of direct experience with grant pursuits.
Perhaps it just feels socially safer to stay on the sidelines
instead of getting off it and going out into the field of play
and competition.
Just trying to acquire grant funding, of course, is not just
enough. What is meant by the risk-taking here?
Risk-taking with untested new ideas
and methods

What grant applicants need to do is to bring something
fresh, high-impact, constructive, and efficacious to the grant
funder. Their work proposal has to offer something original
and valuable.
The idea is not just to mirror back the grant NOFO to the
grant funder. Most grant proposals are predictable and busi-
ness-as-usual.
For many, the unfamiliar feels like excess risk. Proposing
something that is not a near-certainty feels like a bridge too
far. Trying hard but potentially feasible things may not be
politically supported locally (at the grant applicant’s institu-
tion of higher education) or perhaps at the grant funder’s
organization. The risk of failure, especially public failure, is
enough to dissuade many.
Still, this ability to conceptualize new ideas…and to turn
these into work steps…is a core desirable aspect of innova-
tion. This is the type of risk-taking that is often missing from
grant applications, particularly at the community college
level. (Figure 2)

Figure 2. Risk-Taking

There is daring needed to dream, to collaborate, and to risk-
take. Here, the grant principal investigator (PI) determines
the critical objectives and how to get there practically.
Conclusion

It can be a tall order to ask an organization to risk a sense
of self-safety to apply for grant funding with novel ideas and
practices. Lying fallow is not a true option. It does not get
easier. The environment does not somehow get friendlier.
The world does not wait. If they want to bargain from a
position of power, the have to situate the organization to get
to that position…by enabling themselves to offer something
of value to grant funders.
Grant seekers should try to take very available opportunity.
They need to develop themselves along many dimensions
and form the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) and
daring to step out into the unknown.

7. 7
(cont. on the next page)
Debriefing the Grant Writing Support Service
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Administrators wanted more new moneys to come in…in a
time when the federal government itself was pulling back on
available funding. How much did they imagine would be
brought in to justify the cost of the grant writing position? [In
the year and a half, 28.57x the value of the grant writing
position was brought in.]

How to understand the grant writing
support service

So much was left unspoken. Should there have been a way
to debrief the grant writing support service? (Figure 2)

Figure 2. Debriefing


To this end, a number of open-ended and a few close-
ended questions were conceptualized as the beginning of
an assessment instrument for the grant writing services.

• How did you find the grant NOFO (notice of funding
opportunity) that you applied for? Or did the grant writ-
er notify you of this funding opportunity via email or the
grant pursuit newsletter? (The --- Grant Navigator?)
At one community college, there was a question about
whether the grant writer position was an administrative one
or a support one. The administrators settled on the latter,
formally, but there was still the sense of administrative re-
sponsibility applied.
In the time that followed, a number of grant applications were
written and sent out into the world to compete. Some recur-
ring ones were acquired, and a few new ones were also ac-
quired.
Extended expectations

In that time, it also became clear that many colleagues were
unclear of what the service entailed. Several apparently
assumed that grant writing was about filling out forms to ac-
quire money, perhaps something like welfare payments.
Several central administrators seemed to have this mental
model of grant applications, too, even when faced with con-
travening information. Some assumed that the grant writer
could sign for them or the college…and just encumber the
college with legal commitments to do particular work for par-
ticular grant funding. (Nope. The grant writer does not have
that role nor that standing.]
And those that availed themselves of that service also ex-
pressed gratitude within a narrow range of positive respons-
es. (Figure 1) It would seem that other experiences and
emotions may have been left unaddressed. In a research
lens, mostly positive comments may not be sufficiently sub-
stantive to improve.

Figure 1. Grant Writing as a Service

8. 8
(Debriefing...cont.)
• Are there many grants available in your discipline? Why
or why not?
• Where do you look for such opportunities? Which of
these are most fruitful, and why?
• What were the most difficult challenges in getting your
grant application put together? Why?
• Did you experience “supplanting” in the conceptualizing of
the grant application? How did you get past this?
• What was the hardest to understand about the grant ap-
plication process? Why?
• If grants were mostly comprised of five parts, which parts
caused the most challenge and why? [The five parts in-
clude the following: work design, work scheduling to the
action period of the grant funder, staff, budgeting, and
project / program evaluation plan.] Additional parts may
be brought up and addressed here, too.
• What was your role in the grant application process?
Principal investigator? (PI) Co-PI? Team member? Ad-
ministrator? Other? Combined roles? [close-ended
question]
• Were you familiar with the authoring tools used to create
the grant application? The grant submittal platform?
• What sorts of initial research was necessary to build the
rant application? The data analytics?
• Was the pace of work reasonable for putting together the
grant application?
• Did you receive sufficient feedback for your contributions
to the grant application process? [Grant applicants are
the subject matter experts / content experts and so have
to design the core proposed work and provide feedback
on the budget. Ideally, they would also help conduct
some initial research to support the grant narrative.]
• Did you have a partner for this grant application? A
team? Were the partners internal to the college? Exter-
nal? Please elaborate. How would you describe your
experiences with collaborating with others?
• What was your experience with acquiring administrative
approvals for the grant application? At the local level? At
the business office? At the highest administrative level on
campus? At the Board of Trustees level?
• Did you experience a “whole of college” support for grant
pursuit? For grant-funded work? Did you have support
for overhead (Facilities and Administration or “F&A”)?
Accounting? Grant management? Grant reportage?
Others?
• Was the grant application submitted the most competi-
tive that was possible given the available information?
The available time? The available resources? Please
explain.
• Do you have a copy of all the relevant files for the grant
application? (This may be via email. This may be via
access to shared online folders and subfolders. This
may be through a memory stick. The format for the
transfer depends on how the work was achieved and
the grant seeker’s preferred methods of digital data
transfer.]
• Have you heard back as to whether your grant applica-
tion was funded or not? What are your thoughts and
feelings about the result? Why?
• Do you plan on pursuing future grant funding? Why?
Why not?
• Where would you benefit from more support from the
grant writer? Please elaborate.
• What was your prior level of expertise with grant fund-
ing? Any lessons learned from those prior experienc-
es?
• What do you know about the ethics of grant pursuit?
The Code of Federal Regulations in terms of fair pur-
chasing processes? Fair expenditures?
• Any other issues you want to address?

Other questions may be added to this initial brainstorm.

Conclusion

The idea is to improve continuously. The idea is also to
enable those who pursue grants to think critically about their
experiences…to benefit their own awareness and future
grant pursuits. If their experiences are left unexamined, they
cannot benefit from the potential benefits to be had from a
substantive step-by-step review.

9. 9
(cont. on p. 15)
Job Hunting in the Grants Space
By Shalin Hai-Jew
As a grant writer at the time of the U.S. federal govern-
ment’s Great Grant Funding Pullback of 2025, it was hard to
ignore the historicity of that moment.
There was DOGE making surprise visits to various federal
agencies and apparently absconding with government data
(according to press reports). There were grant funding
clawbacks.
And then the grant writing jobs disappeared.
This was a story that had to be explored even if the event
left one’s personal circumstances in tatters.

The first sign of local trouble

The first sign of local trouble came when usually-responsive
colleagues suddenly went silent. They resurfaced in the
afternoon with the explanation: Various state agencies had
reached out and asked for all receipts to be submitted for
spent funds. There was uncertainty about their moneys, and
they didn’t want to leave the college unreimbursed and
shorted. They were not clear if the remaining funds on con-
tracted grants would be disbursed or not. (If not, the college
would simply be left holding the proverbial backpack.)
In other words, the soft money was going softer. In the ear-
ly days, it was not clear if the clawbacks and rescissions
were going to be committed actions or not. Were the ac-
tions for political show, or were they for real?

Then, they came for the jobs

Then came word that the college had cancelled the grant
funder position. The Grants.gov site had suddenly much
less in the way of available funding. And the listed grants
were for forecasted moneys, which meant that the grants
were not funded per se. The listings were placeholders.
This would be a time of austerity, a severe pendulum swing
from the plenty of the pandemic to the un-plenty of the post-
pandemic.

Grant writers joined the ranks of freelancers, artists, and
actors, with uncertain work. They would have to polish their
employment documents to a high sheen—the resumes, the
CVs. They would have to wrangle the letters of recommen-
dation. They would have to find their transcripts and get
them scanned.
All times are in constant flux, with change as the only con-
stant. Said another way, this too shall pass.
Then came word that various friends and colleagues also
lost their positions. One had her agency cut. Another took
early retirement.
A neighbor left one of their cars in the driveway on irregular
hours, sparking concern.

Keeping skillsets fresh

In between applying for various jobs, everyone had to keep
their skills fresh. Some re-upped on volunteer work. Others
took parttime jobs. This would be a time of re-invention and
redefinition.

Illiquidity and austerity

As in all recessions, when moneys start to dry up (illiquidity),
jobs start disappearing. Everything has a way of freezing.
As in all periods of stagflation, the economy is stagnant (no
jobs, no growth)…and the inflation is high.
In both cases, salaries start to fall in a softening job market.
People no longer shop themselves around to different jobs.
They “job hug” (in the current faddish term). Everything is in
a holding pattern.
One may as well settle in for some time doing volunteer
work, debriefing on grant writing and other work. One may
as well take in an occasional matinee. One may as well
check in with friends and family…and just chill…while apply-
ing for jobs while on unemployment.

10. 10
Competitive Advantages in the Grants Space
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
How competitive an institution of higher education (IHE) is in
the grants space depends in part of their positionality: their
leadership, their staff, the various programs, the facilities and
equipment, and the grant-seeking offices that support the
grant principal investigators (PIs) and co-PIs.
Clearly, an organization has to have developed to a competi-
tive state, and it has to continue to evolve and grow over
time to stay competitive. There are a number of dependen-
cies that have to be maintained.
Their history of grant funding, expressed in their portfolio,
may continue inertially in a sense, for a time anyway.
An IHE has a set of potential deliverables (services and
products) that it can produce based on funding. (Figure 1)

Figure 1. Deliverables


Organizational positionality aside…

Beyond the core strengths of an IHE to compete in the
grants space, an IHE has to get out there and compete
based on its strengths. It has to identify the fit between the
IHE and the grant funder. (Applying for everything is not
advisable since that dissipates efforts and does not create
any fit where none actually exist.) Grant funding is never a
sure thing. Probability-wise, it is almost always a single-digit
proposition. A development team has to get out there and
compete rationally. (Figure 2)

Figure 2. Getting Competitive

A team can go in positive, but that is just talk to rally the
team, not a realistic assessment of odds of a win. A team
may be perfectly capable and deserving and put forward a
solid grant application…and still not receive a dime. That
is the state of the field. There is always less money than
there are deserving grant applicants. A majority of appli-
cants will receive nothing. While there may be dreams of
glory and come-from-behind wins, that’s Hollywood, not
reality.
There has to be a constructive sense of initiative and fight
to be effective in the grants space. (Figure 3) There has
to be resilience in coming back from rejections. There has
to be rationality even in the face of wins. It helps to stay in
regular practice and to output work to positive standards.

11. 11
(Competitive Advantages...cont.)
Figure 3. A Constructive Sense of Fight (and Initiative)


There should be a constant state of readiness to apply for
funding since it is not possible to really “time” grant NOFOs
and deadlines. (Figure 4) Some deadlines approach in
weeks after the initial announcement of available funds, and
others may be out several years.

Figure 4. Timing the Grants Process?

Being ready is about making the organization’s own luck. It
enables action, even for serendipitous opportunities. It is
about taking that shot at a possible win.
Without staying fresh, an organization is “culminated.” It
ceases to be competitive. It sets itself out to pasture…
where it can daydream.

About costs to apply for discretionary
(competitive) grant funding

Pursuing grant funding involves some costs. There are the
preawards and postawards capabilities that need to be
supported. There is the time investment by various staff,
from administration to facilities (overhead), faculty to staff,
and so on.

Paying the piper when accepting
grant funding, too

What may surprise others is that it is not costless to accept
grant funding.
The grantee has to do the promised work in the grant ap-
plication. This involves human labor from line staff, the
uses of technologies and equipment and facilities, in-kind
matches and financial costs, the sharing of data and intel-
lectual property, and others. After all, grant funders do
expect a return on investment (ROI). The grantee has to
offer something of value.
Conclusion

A grant application is about thinking creatively for the work
proposal (to properly solve a known problem or challenge).
It is about writing transparently and honestly to represent
the self, the data, and everything else, in the nonfiction
document. Then it’s about following through on the work, if
the grant is funded.

What may surprise others is that it is not
costless to accept grant funding.

12. 12
A Politically Correct Grant Application
By Shalin Hai-Jew
It may always have been a “thing” to make sure that a grant
application is “PC” (as in “politically correct”). One has to
generally be careful not to offend a grant funder, obviously.
(Figure 1)

Figure 1. Politically Correct Grants


In the present age, the being “PC” has come to the forefront.
The question is: Whose political correctness?

How what is politically correct is de-
fined from top down

What is correct in the current age may be diametrically op-
posed to what was desirable in earlier times.
If one were to use a hierarchy, the determinants of “PC-ness”
would be the federal executive (based on laws, regulations,
funding priorities, and the bully pulpit), government-based
grant funding agencies, corporate and nonprofit and family
grant funders, on down. The particular academic discipline
and work industry also have a say.
Grant applicants are focused on acquiring the funding, period.
Grant applications are atypical vehicles for political expres-
sion. (There are much more easily available channels for
political expression, although the ease of finding messages
on social media and to link them to a person is negligibly
easy…and probably not advised.)
In general, most avoid anything that might even lightly reso-
nate of politics. It is good to own the middle ground, the
neutral, and the strategically ambiguous. It helps to be
aligned where possible.
The current flavor of “politically correct” is at least clearly
defined.

Where missteps may occur

Where are political ideas possibly communicated? In some
cases, it may be in the mission, vision, and values state-
ments. Various institutions of higher education (IHEs) are in
the process of formally changing these now to align. Some
public-facing marketing writing may also communicate vari-
ous political values, advertently or inadvertently.
The proposed work may be interpreted through a political
filter or lens or framework.
How the proposed budget spends money may also be seen
as political. For example, the applied tariffs suggest that
“Made in the USA” is preferred.
Then, too, what is researched and what data is collected
may be seen as political. In an ideological world view, some
questions are worth asking, and others are not.
So much is on the line if there is a misstep or two. Valuable
work may go unfunded based on a small whiff of a different
political ideology.

Conclusion

Going PC in the current age requires finesse and close read-
ing of texts, proposals, work propositions, data, and public
relations and marketing materials.
Such concerns are necessary and are not onerous per se.
This is another layer of review and revision and editing that
is necessary to do the work of grant pursuits.

13. 13
(cont. on the next page)
Work Design
By Shalin Hai-Jew
funding opportunity) and other support documentation for
the announced grant funding available.

Figure 2. Desired Outcomes

In many ways, backwards design is used to create a work
plan based on what outputs and outcomes are desirable.
The grant funder often defines a set of problems they want
to solve, issues they want to address.
An employee at the local organization may be inspired by
the issues being addressed.

• If they are thinking about setting up a program to ad-
dress the issue, what would that program look like? Or
a conference? Or research? Or a new equipment pur-
chase? Or an add-on to a building?

There often has to be a motivating core inspiration. The
local organization sees a need that requires addressing.
They are aware that they may have a solution to a known
problem.
From that core inspiration, they conceptualize how the solu-
tion would be arrived at. They conceptualize the delivera-
bles or outputs from the work. They think about how the
work will bridge to the stakeholders to meet their needs.
The inner beating heart of a grant proposal is really the
work proposal—the unique and valuable labor that will be
achieved by the grant applicant’s development team…to
standards…within deadline…and under budget.
The tip of the spear in the grant application is the grant
principal investigator (PI) and the team of co-PIs and others
who will actualize the work. Without their specialist exper-
tise and their initiative, discretionary grant applications will
not go out… and the grant-funded work will not get done.
For all the high profile of administrators who step out to
brag about awarded funds, it is the expert line staff that are
critical to this work.

What goes into a work design?

What are the essential elements of a work design (in a
grant application)? (Figure 1)

Figure 1. Work Design


First, the team has to understand what the grant funder is
interested in funding, in terms of their work objectives…and
the desired outcomes that they want to see. (Figure 2)
This information is spelled out in the grant NOFO (notice of

14. 14
(Work Design...cont.)
(cont. on the next page)
They are aware of necessary inputs to the work and the feasi-
ble outputs (deliverables). In terms of inputs, what sorts of
human labor is required and how many hours of each? What
is needed for planning? What about technologies, equip-
ment, and facilities? What about research? What about the
participation of project partners?
They define the work in terms of the larger tasks and then the
subtasks. They have to set up the proper sequence for the
work. They have to understand the dependencies for each
task. (Dependencies are “show stoppers” if these fail to ma-
terialize. There can be chokepoints in a project if the work is
not set up well.)

Problems in a work plan

Where problems arise in a work plan are the following:

• One common problem is if the individual does not have
experience with the work. A lack of experience can lead
to all sorts of error in terms of work planning. One error
would be insufficient staffing and insufficient tasking, with
a lack of foresight to understand that there are gaps to
the planned work. Another may be not anticipating
where there may be challenges to the work…that can
hold up or stop the work progress altogether.
• Another error in a work plan may be that it does not ad-
dress the target work objectives stated by the grant fun-
der. It goes off track.
• An optimism bias may lead to an insufficient timeline for
the work. The planner assumes that the work will require
much less effort than is actually needed. (A paper plan
with no tie to reality is not useful.) A pessimism bias
means that too much time is scheduled, which makes the
team look less efficient and most costly…to the grant
funder. Optimally, a clear-headed assessment based on
experience and evidence would be optimal.
• A poor work plan will leave off defined standards for the
work.
• A poor work plan may leave off the project / program
evaluation plan…for how to assess the quality of the pro-
ject…and the standards that will be used to determine
whether the project has been successful completed. Or
the observables may not be observable. The metrics
may be inconvenient to capture. Or the metrics may be
too subjective and not sufficiently objective.
• A lacking work plan may leave out the guiding objec-
tives of the grant funder. The work may not logically
connect to the outcomes that the grant funder wants.

Anticipating where real-world work
problems may arise

On paper, a work plan will go off without a hitch. In real life,
problems may arise in places where the grant PI and co-PIs
may not anticipate.
For example, in one grant-funded project, a corporation that
held rights to a particular instructional model required many
months before they would sign over a release and only for a
year at a time. Rights releases can be problematic in ways
that the development team may not anticipate.
Work standards are in constant flux. Whatever work is de-
veloped has to use the latest standards, whether for tech-
nical standards, research standards, accessibility, design, or
other area.
In terms of partner organizations, people move on and are
no longer available to work on a project. Cost projections
change.
Facilities used for work may experience unfortunate acci-
dents, such as fires, which may take them out of commis-
sion for years or forever.
Technologies will change over time, requiring constant
learning. Technologies may suddenly require extra costs,
perhaps going to a subscription model vs. a one-time fee. In
one project, a laptop went missing. In another project, a
server got partially wiped.
Core staff members on the team may move on and leave
the project, often without that particular expertise. (Many
teams do not engage in cross-training.)
Team members may have members who do not get along
and can not somehow work through their differences. Some
may let spite get the best of them. They may engage in gos-
sip and project sabotage.
The grant funder may change their vision for the project mid
-stream. Work evaluators may suddenly withhold their ap-
proval. They may change their sense of what the outputs
should look like. Perhaps there is a discrepancy between

15. 15
(External Reputation...cont. on p. 4)
(Mapping...cont. from p. 5)
(Job Hunting...cont. from p. 9)
(Work Design...cont.)
the inexpert mental models of the development team vs. the
expert conceptual models of the grant funder evaluators…or
vice versa. [The latter is more common since the line staff
tend towards expertise…and the grant funder evaluators more
towards generalist expertise…in some cases.]
In theory, work would just go along smoothly. In real life,
there are a number of on-ground necessities to make some-
thing real.

About adaptability

A work plan has to be feasible and realistic and a little ambi-
tious. It also has to be sufficiently adaptable and changeable
based on new objectives, new “change orders,” staff changes,
budgetary changes, and the like.
Does the team need to flex to shave off part of the work if they
run out of time (with the agreement of the grant funder, in
some cases)? Or, can the team flex to add some more work if
there is extra time, good will, and resources (with the agree-
ment of the grant funder, in some cases)?
Conclusion

To be successful, a team pursuing grant funding benefits from
spending some solid thought for the work plan…and then to
build the other parts of the grant application around this solid
core.
The offers of micro payment jobs are plenty. There are come-
ons to assess AI outputs for piecework and piece-pay.
Grant writing jobs appear and then are retracted. Some grant
jobs exist for grants that were left intact and continuing. There
are fund-raising jobs aplenty in higher education, but it is not
fully spelled out where the moneys will come from (Alumni?
Corporations? Corporate foundations? Non-profits? Wealthy
donors?)
Conclusion

This is only a moment. What freezes will unfreeze. And when
things unfreeze, the competition will be even more fierce.
The IHE has to be “grant-ready,” with sophisticated adminis-
trators and business functions. It has to get itself on the
grant funder map as a contender, as a doer. It has to avoid
misrepresentations and other frauds. That means no faked
data, no false assertions, no double- or triple-counting of
people, and other thumb-on-the-scale manipulations.
[Sadly, these are quite common, especially in IHEs with poor
and unethical leadership.] Ground truths do have a way of
revealing and frauds of coming undone.
It has to be able to make the case for the value of its work,
to optimally use the energy potential of money (in a way
better than any other comers in the space). [Discretionary
grants are doled out based on a meritocracy.]
Conclusion

It is fine and good to approach rant seeking with an abun-
dance of hope. But it also has to be accompanied by self-
awareness, an openness to learning about grants, and el-
bow grease (hard work). Without the additional pieces and
parts, hope dissipates.
Conclusion

IHEs work hard to look good to others in the public space.
Some even actually do good, so there is a basis in fact for the
representations.
The challenge is that there is not one
voice depicting an IHE but multiple
voices from a range of perspectives.
There is endless online collection of
information and a resulting world of
data.

16. 16
Multiplier Effects
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
Grant NOFOs often request “high impact” work. Grant fun-
ders require return on investment (ROI). What does that
mean exactly, and what are some ways to ensure that a pro-
posed work project has a high impact?
To be competitive, a grant applicant has to be able to make a
feasible case that their proposed work will offer high impact in
line with the stated objectives. (Figure 1)

Figure 1. Getting Competitive

Once a basic and feasible work plan is set up, the grant appli-
cant team may explore multiplier effects to expand the posi-
tive effects of their work. (Figure 2)

Figure 2. Multiplier Effects
Typical core arguments of value in
higher education

The value propositions of a grant application are based on
the target objectives of the funding organization (which
hopefully are aligned with those of the grant applicant
organization).
It helps to consider what some typical core arguments of
value are.

• The program or project offers a benefit to the target
stakeholders. In an institution of higher education,
there may be benefits to the learners…the instruc-
tors…the professional collaborators, and the educa-
tional department. The department and college may
benefit from enhanced capabilities, enhanced ser-
vices, enhanced educational products (curricula,
technologies, and techniques), new facilities, and new
equipment. There may be benefits to practitioners in
the field (such as through sharing of the learning from
the work, the making of transferable models based on
the work). There may be benefits to the industries to
whom the learners go upon graduation. There may
be benefits to researchers. An event may benefit the
larger community along with the direct participants.
Perhaps the program or project creates jobs in the
larger economy.
• There may be social arguments of benefit, such as
the inclusion of the larger population in learning, in
professional work, and in social engagement.
• The grant-funded work benefits the field by offering
new management insights and new data and new
research methods.
• The program or project helps move the particular
discipline into the future, with new learning, new tech-
niques, new technologies, and heightened efficien-
cies.
• The work will result in patentable inventions, which
will advance the field and bring in funding.
• The work will result in cost savings by making costly

17. 17
(Multiplier Effects...cont.)
Figure 3. Quality Standards


Yet, the work generally has to occur within the action peri-
od of the grant funder (a limited amount of time)…and with-
in the budgetary constraints of the funded grant (or the
proposed grant).

Conclusion

Planning ahead and engaging in paper prototyping prior to
the work can be the difference in how time and other criti-
cal resources are used.
It takes focus and discipline to be efficient in the uses of
resources, of time, and of good will, without wasting any of
it.
How well the plan is executed will reveal in the fullness of
time.
books and technologies essentially free to users.
(This is a disintermediation argument.) Often, the
beneficiaries of such projects are college students.


If the above are some of the ways that value maybe
argued for a grant-funded project in higher education,
amplification of value has to generally work across these
lines.


Amplifying in the direction of the
stated objectives

How to magnify the impact of a grant-funded project
involves extending the understood value propositions.

• Can the stakeholder pool be expanded to other sub-
populations? Can the work be more inclusive?
• Are there additional efficiencies which have not
been exploited?
• Are there pieces of research, data, and modeling
that may be achieved to expand the benefits of the
work into the future?
• Are there ways to expand the geographies of the
project?
• Are there extensible aspects of the grant-funded
work?
• Are there ways to partner with other professional
colleagues to expand the impact of the work?

The extensions have to be observable and measurable.
The additional work cannot draw away resources from
achieving quality standards. The add-ons have to meet
the quality standards stipulated by the grant funder, reg-
ulatory agencies, and the grant applicants. (Figure 3)
The extra value-added cannot dilute the original work,
and the original work cannot dilute the multiplier efforts.
Ideally. Practically.

18. 18
What to Hold Back
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on tp. 20)
The information that goes into a grant application is selec-
tive.
In that sense, some information is revealed and some con-
cealed. Not everything is relevant.
So what should be shared vs. not shared? (Figure 1)

Figure 1. What to Share, Not Share


So what should be held back?

Anything tenuous, undecided, unsure, or known should be
held back in terms of the work plan. These unclear aspects
may be lightly referred to, but if something is not a fair cer-
tainty, it should not be included. Why? Essentially, such
information may be misleading. Perhaps questions may be
used as placeholders for uncertain information.
If research data is used to make the case for grant funding,
it is generally shared…or at least summarized. If the data
has unexploited competitive advantage (analytics not yet
done and published), then the raw data should probably be
held back.
If there is patentable information, that should not be
shared…because that would be leaking competitive ad-
vantage. (Grant applications may “travel” in ways that the
grant seekers may not have anticipated.) Grant evaluators
may be brought in from outside to provide feedback, for ex-
ample, so the grant applications often do not just stay within
a funding agency or grant funder organization.
If information is too complex to fully explain for clarity, and it
is not absolutely relevant to include, perhaps that information
may be held back until a later date.
Anything that may be potentially misleading should not be
included. If something may be misleading, it should abso-
lutely be presented with full clarity and explanatory depth.
The essential idea is to include what is requested and to be
thorough (not to mislead by omission). The idea is to com-
pete well but honestly.

What is released to a grant funder?

A grant funder has to be a trusted entity as well. After all,
much is released to a grant funder in the grant application
and in the grant funded work (if the grant is funded).

There may be the following shared:

• Ideas for work proposals
• Original data (from primary research)
• Institutional data
• Institutional resources (equipment, technologies, facili-
ties, utilities, overhead) for the work project
• Access to professional staff and leadership
• Access to the institution and its reputation
• Access to the institution’s professional social networks
and larger communities

19. 19
Politically Sensitive Parts of a Grant Application
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
At an organization, the social predominates. Given that, a
grant application can surface political sensitivities. (Figure
1)

Figure 1. Political Sensitivities


These are sensitivities that can cause administrators or
faculty to feel threatened. These are sensitivities that may
scotch a project.
If shepherding a grant application is about helping the grant
application team achieve funding success, it is important to
avoid political minefields where possible. Political mines
are hidden, and those who laid those mines have no inter-
est in sharing their political concerns with any transparency.

What may be politically sensitive

Politics are generally local. What is sensitive depends on
the context. It depends on the people. Political sensitivities
exist where there is a sense of vulnerability and risk.


So what may be politically sensitive?

• Check where reputations are at risk. The fear of embar-
rassment or negative revelation can be highly discomfit-
ing. These fears may have no basis in fact, but many
can be intimidated by their own imaginations. This can
be internally or externally (such as with external organi-
zations, external media organizations, and the like).
• Political sensitivities may lie in messaging, such as politi-
cal messaging. (If political identity is core to individuals
and organizations, funding organization’s messaging
may be offensive.)
• Organizations often do not welcome outside scrutiny,
such as through audits, and other mechanisms of ac-
countability.
• Intellectual property (IP) may be a space of sensitivities,
since these may involve competitive advantage.
• Anything involving expenditures and funding can be sen-
sitive. These can bring up issues of turf and authorities.
• Anything involving potential legal liability can be political-
ly sensitive.

Grant application teams are not in the business of surfacing
vulnerabilities or causing reckless harm. But interestingly
enough, grant applications cross enough parts of bureaucrat-
ic leadership and interests that they are controlled and exam-
ined closely.

Parts of a grant application that may be
especially sensitive

So what parts of a grant application may be especially sensi-
tive?

• Grant funders will ask questions of the fitness of the or-
ganization for pursuing grant funding. These include
questions about how law-abiding the organization is,

20. 20
(Hold Back...cont. from p. 18)
(Politically Sensitive...cont.)
how well it hires and fires and treats its staff, how it
manages its budget, how it manages expenditures, and
the like. These representations are sensitive. They
have to be accurate and comprehensive.

• Another part of a grant that is sensitive relates to staff-
ing. If there have been challenges with staffing audits in
the past, this can be sensitive.

• Another aspect may be the budget. How much will a
project or program cost, and where will the funding go?
These all can raise issues of turf.

• The staffing may be an issue. Direct supervisors have
to approve participation in a grant application and then
the grant-funded work if the proposed work is funded.
Time spent on one thing cannot simultaneously be spent
on something else, which may be a priority to adminis-
trators. This is why there need to be approvals up and
down the chain for a grant application to work.

• Representations of program expenditures can be highly
sensitive because it puts under scrutiny what has been
done before. Such information may bring unwarranted
attention.

Not all political sensitivities are rationally arrived at. In fact,
many are irrational and even emotion-based. This means
that if such sensitivities are rationally questioned or chal-
lenged, the administrators will not likely respond construc-
tively. (Figure 2)

Figure 2. Compromise

Opportunities to compete, to take on external sponsorship
supports, are lost daily, due to political sensitivities.
This is not to say that these sensitivities are not sometimes
without merit. There are cases when such sensitivities may
head off a potential problem at the pass. Those at higher
levels of an organization do necessarily have a different per-
spective because of their interactions with the broad public,
their own authorizing boards, state government, and the like.
Conclusion

Understanding where political sensitivities lie is important to
the success of a grant application and the grant-funded pro-
ject. It is built in professional trust and transparency, without
which a grant application or grant-funded project can be
stopped in its tracks.
Conclusion

Again, this is not to say that the grant applicant organization
or team should hide derogatory information (and avoid own-
ing its own past).
Some thought should go into what to include and what to
exclude. This is not about including everything but the kitch-
en sink. There is selectivity in terms of the information in a
grant application.

Anything tenuous, undecided, unsure, or
known should be held back in terms of the
work plan. These unclear aspects may be
lightly referred to, but if something is not a
fair certainty, it should not be included.
Why? Essentially, such information may
be misleading. Perhaps questions may be
used as placeholders for uncertain
information.

21. 21
Right-Sizing in the Meantime
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Y2025 brought with it many changes to federal funding for
higher education. Many grants underwent funding with-
drawals, clawbacks, rescissions, and cancellations.
Where grant funding clawbacks tended to be very rare and
only in cases of serious grantee malfeasance in prior years,
suddenly, the cuts were general-scale and applied to virtual-
ly everyone.
Grants with forecasted funding ended up not materializing.
Multi-year grants that did get funded came with a notice that
it would be a year-by-year thing. These were also on the
chopping block.

Right-Sizing

Institutions of higher education (IHEs) were left to right-size.
In other words, if there was excess capacity unsupported by
the marketplace, that endeavor would end. The organiza-
tion would shrink down to its barebones functions, within the
limits of resources. (Figure 1)

Figure 1. Right Sizing


Based on their core competencies in terms of teaching and
community engagement, and within the limits of cut-back
budgets and falling enrollments, each organization went
through necessary changes.
According to media coverage, the IHEs laid off staff, cut pro-
grams, sold buildings and land, and re-branded themselves.
They amped up methods to bring in cash by reaching out to
the larger community and alumni.
Some IHEs partnered up with other IHEs or organizations;
others were subsumed into other organizations. Many fo-
cused more on domestic learners than foreign ones.

Conclusion

Where grants will be in a few years is likely non-existent or
severely cut back. The rationale for the cutbacks has not
changed. There is no magical infusion of taxpayer funding
expected per se. Top leadership in the nation is not likely to
change their stance. The right-sizing is expected to take
years before any dust will settle.
Meanwhile, the administrative strategy is about making do.

22. 22
Grant Funding Track Records
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Why does maintaining institutional memory about grant
funding matter?
One, it helps the staff involved in external sponsorships
know what came before. They have documents that they
may review for their own contemporaneous work.
More importantly…grant funders will ask about prior grant
funding.

Grant funders ask

Some grant funders ask about the applicant organization’s
prior experiences with grant funding. They want to know
with whom the college has partnered (organization-wise)
and for what types of projects and when. (Figure 1) They
want to know if the work was completed successfully. They
want to know if any lawsuits came out from prior grant pro-
jects.

Figure 1. Grant Funding Track Record


Grant funders ask because “priors” may be indicative of
continuing successes or continuing failures.
In many cases, the query is part of the grant application. In
other cases, the information is requested but may be sub-
mitted as a support document.
In some cases, the grant funding track record applies to the
local department or bureaucratic unit. Grant funders want to
know how experienced the local funding unit is in terms of
external funding.
They want to know if some of the prior grant recipients in-
clude those on the current grant application as part of the
development team. They may make some inferences about
how ready the local team is to do the work, if they are fund-
ed.
It is a red flag if the local grant applicant team has no track
record with grant funding…and are essentially neophytes. If
the application shows a sophisticated sensibility and the
CVs or resumes are solid, that may help assuage concerns.
Otherwise, the lack of experience may be concerning to the
grant funders.

Conclusion

The relevance of a grant track record reveals the fitness of
an organization to pursue grant funding successfully and to
complete the required work (on budget) (within schedule)
and (to professional standards). This track record shows
something of the leadership of the college and their capabili-
ties. It shows something of the quality of their retained staff.
Maintaining a sense of professional memory takes effort. It
takes documentation. It is important to showing the profes-
sional competitiveness of the grant applicant team.

23. 23
Amateur Grant Writing
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on the next page)
A grant application shows the “author hand” in various ways.
A professional’s handiwork may be seen in the language,
the planning, the clarity, the value proposition of the pro-
posed work, and other elements.
Amateur grant writers show their hands in their handiwork,
too.

Some details in an amateur writer’s
grant application

What are some tells?
Some amateurs are too obvious in their strategy. Some
may be overly sincere. They may name drop awkwardly.
They may try to create a false intimacy with the grant funder
or the grant funder’s project manager. They play up social
or organizational connections.
They may try to take the grant application off of the designed
pathway. They apparently expect special treatment. Per-
haps they argue that they deserve different treatment.
They may let slip their sense of self-deservingness and enti-
tlement. If only there is the “pretty please,” the money is
theirs. There does not seem to be the greater awareness of
the grants marketplace or that discretionary grants are com-
petitively attained. Perhaps there is no clear sense of the
value of money. (Figure 1)

Figure 1. No Free Lunch
Puffery over substance

Another tell of amateurism in grant writing is going with puff-
ery vs. substance.
Highfalutin (pompous) language does not sell a work pro-
posal. Neither do faked letters or letters attesting to false-
hoods.
Perhaps there are manipulations to undercut the competition.
Perhaps there is manipulating the budget to make it look like
the college can do the work for less money than a peer com-
petitor.
Gappiness

Another sign of amateur grant writing is an incomplete grants
package, with missing pieces and parts.
Or the written contents may not fit the grant genre (form).
Perhaps the tone is unprofessional. There may be presump-
tuous in treatment of the grant funder and staff. There may
be disrespecting pf deadlines, standards, and requirements.
The grant writer may play fast and loose with facts.
Sloppiness

One may be a sense of general sloppiness. Perhaps there
are grammatical and syntax-based errors. Perhaps the files
are not named consistently or accurately. A grant application
has to be reviewed iteratively and multiple times in order to
catch all potential issues.
Perhaps a former grant application is regurgitated and re-
used. Perhaps this is so even if there is no fit between the
old application and the new grant funding opportunity.

What the grants market will bear

In a competitive grants marketplace, the grant applications
that win funding are those that offer value to the target stake-
holders and to the grant funder. There have to be some ben-
efits to the target stakeholders (beneficiaries of the work).
The grant funder expects some return on investment (ROI),

24. 24
(Amateur Grant Writing...cont.)
such as some work deliverables, data, a model, an event,
published research, new courseware, or some combination.
The grant applicant (principal investigator) has to actually
work towards solving a real problem. It cannot just be about
talk and swagger. (Figure 2)

Figure 2. Admiring the Problem (from Afar)?


What an amateur grant writer needs to
get right to be competitive


If one were an amateur approaching grant writing, the most
important thing to get right would be the grant principal in-
vestigator’s information:

• The proposed work,
• The work scheduling,
• The staff,
• The budget, and
• The project evaluation plan.

These are the core fundamental elements of a grant appli-
cation.
Each grant application has its own structure, though, and
additional other information is almost always required.
The supporting data has to be accurate.

Conclusion

Being new to a field is not a bad thing. Being an amateur, a
non-pro, is also not negative per se. Still, it is important to
own that status and to make the necessary adjustments to
turn out a professional job on the grant application.