Engaging social-emotional motivators to improve the grant writing experience: a workshop model for teaching scientific writing

ABSTRACT

Grant writing is an important skill that scientists must acquire in order to have successful careers as independent researchers. However, despite its importance, many scientists report that they do not enjoy grant writing because it is stressful, lonely, requires a lot of time and effort, and involves the possibility of rejection. As a result, many scientists have more negative associations with grant writing than positive ones. In this article, we offer a novel intervention in the form of a social-emotional learning (SEL)-informed workshop and accompanying handout for emerging scientists to build more positive associations with their writing. The approaches in this workshop intentionally leverage SEL motivators (such as scientific identity, sense of purpose, and community) to help grant writers overcome common challenges that accompany the writing process. A pre-post survey analysis of this workshop showed a shift from negative/challenge-focused attitudes and perceptions toward grant writing toward positive/process-focused ones after the workshop. This 1-hour intervention can be facilitated by research development professionals, lab leaders, or anyone teaching scientific writing for undergraduates, graduate students, and postdocs.

INTRODUCTION

The ability to secure external funding in order to conduct research can have a significant positive impact on the success of one’s career as a scientist. However, grant writing is rarely explicitly taught in undergraduate and graduate programs, and many scientists are left to acquire the skill ad hoc (1), making it an obscure and stressful process to navigate. Grant writing is often described as a time-consuming and lonely process (2), and the possibility of rejection can compound the stress associated with writing. For many scientists, grant writing is their least favorite part of the job. Given the severity of the feelings associated with grant writing, it is especially important that emerging scientists, such as undergraduate and graduate students, begin to build positive associations with writing early on.

As Joshua Schimmel (3) says, “as a scientist, you are a professional writer.” But how can scientists learn to love this critical yet stressful part of being a scientist? This article offers a workshop intervention framework grounded in social-emotional learning (SEL), that is, learning strategies that attend to the social and emotional aspects of learning. SEL can have a significant impact on students’ academic and career success (4, 5); thus, incorporating more SEL strategies in STEM learning environments can result in more positive learning experiences and outcomes for learners in university settings (6).

The described workshop was developed by Stanford’s Biosciences Grant Writing Academy as a result of 10 years of evolving support for grant writers and a deep understanding of the challenges they face. The goal of the workshop is to expand support beyond the mechanics of grant writing and engage SEL motivators (such as scientific identity, sense of purpose, and community) to overcome the common social-emotional challenges associated with writing. This article is an adaptation of many iterations of the workshop. In an accompanying study that used the framework described in this article (Fig. 1) (see companion article for full results [7]), we found through pre-post survey data (n = 31 participants) that using these strategies in grant writing training significantly reduced negative attitudes about grant writing proportionately by 89% and improved positive attitudes by 143% (7).

Fig 1.

SEL workshop intervention.

PROCEDURE

The workshop is to be led by a facilitator who is familiar with the process of grant writing, such as scientific writing instructors, research development professionals, or principal investigators at any level. The ideal class size is 12–34 near-peer participants at the undergraduate, trainee (graduate student/postdoc), and/or faculty level but can also be adopted by individual scientists. The workshop includes an opening activity (A1; 15 minutes), an activity exploring the three-part framework (A2.1–3; 30 minutes), and a closing activity (A3; 15 minutes).

Materials

Participants will need a writing utensil for a drawing activity. Colorful markers or pens are preferred. Included in the supplemental material are a printable handout for participants (Supplemental Material 1) and an example version for the facilitator to see examples of expected responses (Supplemental Material 2). The facilitator may choose to create and present a slide deck to structure the session. A whiteboard with dry erase markers can be used during large group activities to record shared ideas.

Activity 1: Reconnect with your science identity

(15 minutes: 5 minutes to reflect and draw, 6 minutes in a pair-share, and 4 minutes in group discussion)

People become scientists for a number of reasons. A study from Pew Research found that some of the most common motivations include, for example, a love of science or nature, impactful mentors, or a formative experience in a lab or science museum (8). In the opening activity, participants reflect on experiences that influenced their decision to become a scientist. During this activity, ask participants to draw a picture using colorful drawing tools that represents their scientist origin story. This activity reconnects scientists with their sense of purpose. After drawing, students share their stories with a partner. The facilitator should ask a few participants to share their science origin stories with the larger group. If time permits, everyone can share. On the whiteboard, the facilitator should highlight common themes from the stories. To conclude this activity, participants are encouraged to hang this picture within their workstation because science origin stories can reinvigorate one’s purpose to persist when faced with challenges.

Activity 2: Engaging the three-part framework

The three-part framework (reframe grant writing, make writing a habit, join a writing community) was described in (2), although with slightly different titles.

Activity 2.1: Reframe grant writing

(14 minutes: 4 minutes group share-out on whiteboard, 5 minutes self-reflection, and 5 minutes pair-share and large group share-out)

The grant writing process can bring up challenging emotions, especially for students who are learning this skill for the first time. Ask participants to share what comes to mind when they think about grant writing and document the responses on the board. Most of the responses will likely be challenge-focused (e.g., stressful, time-consuming, rejection, and overwhelming). The goal of this activity will be to have the participants shift from the challenges of grant writing to focusing on SEL motivators (e.g., sense of purpose, science identity, and community), which bolster resilience and academic engagement (6, 9).

Using the reflection prompts on the handout, participants answer questions related to how it feels to connect with their scientific curiosities and how they can pull inspiration from this and apply it toward future proposals. They will also reflect on the vulnerability involved in grant writing and the feelings associated with critique, rejection, and inadequacy. Reflecting on and naming feelings can normalize common challenges and reduce the negative impact they have on writers (10). This activity works to reframe the feedback-seeking process as a conversation with reviewers and as a reminder that reviewer feedback can improve their work. In pairs, they will discuss what they reflected on in the activity. Ask for a few participants to share their experiences with the larger group.

To conclude this activity, the facilitator should note that grant writing is challenging because writing is challenging and that scientists can employ strategies to become more effective writers.

Activity 2.2: Make writing a habit

(10 minutes: 4 minutes per column and corresponding questions in pairs and 2 minutes group share)

Remind participants that as scientists, we must become professional writers (3), as our impact is measured with grants, papers, and citations. When scientists describe their challenges with grant writing, they often, in fact, cite struggles with writing resistance. With specific training, scientists can master the skills needed to become a professional (grant) writer (11).

As a group, review the different types of writing resistance listed in Table 1 and in the handout. The facilitator can provide real-life examples of their experience with writing resistance. For example, sometimes when I go to write, I get tempted to do other things like organize my record collection. Ask the participants to identify a few writing resistances that they have encountered in their writing and share in pairs for a few minutes.

TABLE 1.

Types of writing resistance and generative writing strategies (adapted from Peterson et al. [11])

Types of writing resistance	Generative writing strategies
Evaluation: This draft is not good enough. Inspiration: I don’t know what to write about. Motivation: I don’t feel like writing today. Optimization: This needs to be perfect. Procrastination: I will write tomorrow. Separation: I can only write in a quiet environment. Temptation: I need to reorganize my filing cabinets right now.	Define your writing time (create a schedule) Create an environment for writing Write first and edit later Use anchors to develop a productive writing habit Be accountable with a writing buddy Seek focused feedback Take a break Make an outline Practice writing Manage self-talk about writing Re-evaluate your process Create a reward after finishing writing

Similarly, review the generative writing strategies (Table 1). Again, the facilitator can share personal experiences to bring the examples to life. For example, when I don’t feel like writing, I check in with an accountability buddy to share what my goal is for the day. Have participants discuss the strategies in pairs. Note that multiple strategies can address multiple types of resistance. Take 2 minutes for a large group share-out to hear what came up in the discussion.

Activity 2.3: Create community around it

(6 minutes large group discussion)

Grant writing can be a lonely process (2), but joining a writing community can provide accountability and improve scientists’ sense of belonging, which is closely tied to academic retention and performance (12, 13). In a large group, brainstorm ways for participants to find community. Note that some work needs to be done in advance to identify institutional resources (e.g., writing center programs, department-led initiatives, peer writing groups).

Activity 3: Closing discussion and making a continuation plan

(15 minutes: 5 minutes reflection, 5 minutes pair share, 5 minutes large group share)

This workshop will be most impactful if the discussion about strategies continues after the 1-hour session. Using the handout, participants will have 5 minutes to fill out the continuation plan (Table 2) and document their takeaways. In pairs, they will discuss their most important takeaways. After sharing in pairs, open the discussion to the larger group. Use the whiteboard to take notes on what is shared.

TABLE 2.

Making a continuation plan

Making a continuation plan
A1. Our science origin stories can be an important source of inspiration because they connect us directly to our sense of purpose. What can you pull from your science origin story to remind you of your purpose?
A2.1. Grant writing is hard because writing is hard. There are many elements to a grant proposal, which can be overwhelming for grant writers. What do you want to focus on in your reframing?
A2.2. We all face different challenges with writing resistance. What did you learn from doing the generative writing strategies activity? What strategies will you employ to improve your writing approaches?
A2.3. Grant writing can be a lonely endeavor, but when we write in community, we have more support and accountability. How will you build community around writing?
A3. At what points of this workshop did you feel positive emotions like joy and optimism? Why is it important to incorporate these feelings into your grant writing practice? What strategies will you use to implement more joy into your grant writing routine?

CONCLUSION

The activities in this 1-hour workshop are designed to help participants discover more positive associations with their science writing by engaging in a three-part SEL framework. The challenges of grant writing are many, but with intention and effort, some of the most difficult social and emotional parts of grant writing can be mitigated.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

The following material is available online at https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00065-25.

Supplemental Material 1. jmbe.00065-25-s0001.docx.

Handout.

Supplemental Material 2. jmbe.00065-25-s0002.docx.

Handout with example responses.

ASM does not own the copyrights to Supplemental Material that may be linked to, or accessed through, an article. The authors have granted ASM a non-exclusive, world-wide license to publish the Supplemental Material files. Please contact the corresponding author directly for reuse.