Supporting Dissertation Work through a Nursing PhD Program Federal Grant Writing Workshop

Abstract

Background:

Nurse researchers need skills to secure external funding; therefore, we created a grant writing workshop for PhD students focused on the F31 Individual Fellowship and R36 Dissertation Grant.

Purpose:

Describe a nursing PhD program federal grant writing workshop and present participant impressions and outcomes.

Methods:

We designed a three half-day workshop covering essential aspects of grant writing combined with mentor participation and follow-up. We assessed participant satisfaction in evaluations, subsequent grant submissions, project implementation, and time from PhD program entry to completion.

Findings:

Evaluations were overwhelmingly positive. Seventeen of 29 (58.6%) participants submitted 21 applications; five (23.8%) were funded. The majority (75.0%) conducted the proposed dissertation project regardless of funding. Writing and submitting a grant did not increase time to program completion.

Discussion:

The workshop efficiently supports PhD students’ dissertation research. Timing and mentor participation are key for success. We recommend schools of nursing implement PhD program grant writing workshops.

INTRODUCTION

While Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) programs in nursing provide students with advanced skills in research theory, methodology, and design to enable them to combine clinical practice with formal research to advance the science of nursing (Rice, 2016), these programs do not necessarily include formal coursework in grant writing. The ability to secure external grant funding to support research is required for successful independent nurse scientists; therefore, PhD students must not only have knowledge in designing and conducting sound research projects, but must also be able to navigate the complicated processes required for planning, writing, and submitting grant applications to obtain federal funding from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

Our school’s current PhD curriculum, designed to accelerate time to program completion and graduation, does not allow time for a credit-bearing grant writing course in the curriculum. Since inception of the program in the mid-1990s, few of our PhD students have pursued grant writing while completing the program, and those who did were highly motivated and encouraged by their mentors. In the increasingly competitive funding landscape, it is apparent that all PhD students need to leave the program with basic grant writing skills to enhance their likelihood of future success. However, in a recent survey exploring barriers and facilitators for PhD nursing students to pursue nurse faculty careers, less than half of participants who planned to seek academic careers after graduation, including those at research-intensive institutions, felt confident about their ability to write a grant proposal (Fang, Bednash, & Arietti, 2016). Recognizing our responsibility to provide training in grant writing, and as proposed in one of our federally-funded institutional training grants (T32 NR014250), in 2014 we launched a zero-credit annual federal grant writing workshop for all first-year PhD students – the Doctoral Student Federal Grant Writing Workshop – to encourage them to write and submit grant applications to support their dissertation research.

While there is a recognized need to prepare PhD students for a future career of grant writing (Dumanis, Ullrich, Washington, & Forcelli, 2013; Fang et al., 2016; Parker & Steeves, 2005; Rawl, 2014), this entirely “home grown” workshop is a unique facet of our school’s PhD program. Several authors provide general guidance and best practices in grant writing and describe various types of grant writing strategies and workshops for predoctoral and graduate students (Dumanis et al., 2013; Hasche, Perron, & Proctor, 2009; Mackert, Donovan, & Bernhardt, 2017). However, we only identified one book (Hollenbach, 2013) and two peer-reviewed articles (Parker & Steeves, 2005; Rawl, 2014) that provide specific guidance on how best to support nursing PhD students preparing a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) Individual Predoctoral Fellowship (F31), often the most relevant federal grant fellowship opportunity.

To fill this gap and assist faculty in schools of nursing seeking to promote and support grant writing by their PhD students, the objectives of this report are to (1) describe strategies for designing and implementing a federal grant writing workshop in a nursing PhD program and (2) present workshop participant impressions and outcomes to date.

METHODS

The Doctoral Student Federal Grant Writing Workshop focuses primarily on the F31 NRSA and the AHRQ R36 Dissertation Grant but also covers basic information on other funding opportunities such as NIH Administrative and Diversity Supplements and a variety of relevant non-federal funding options (i.e., opportunities from professional organizations and foundations). Workshop content that was developed collaboratively by the PhD Program Director, senior faculty nurse scientists, and an experienced research administrator is refined annually in response to student evaluations and to accommodate periodic changes in federal rules and requirements.

Essential Resources

To organize and manage the workshop, we have found it helpful to use the same web-based course format and file repository system for workshop materials that is used for official university courses. This allows easy access to centrally stored essential workshop resources for all participants, both current and former; students also upload their workshop assignments here for sharing purposes. Each year all materials are updated to ensure participants have the most recent grant writing resources such as: up-to-date program announcements, instructions, and forms; “boiler plate” grant sections that are tailored for the “Facilities and Other Resources” and “Additional Educational Information” attachments; and internal policies and procedures that students must follow in preparing and submitting their grant applications (e.g., instructions on workflow, the role of the grants management office, deadlines, etcetera).

Another useful resource uploaded is a collection of “grant exemplars” – previous applications (with approval of the investigator/mentor) which workshop participants can access securely using their unique identification code and password but cannot be disseminated outside the school. Funded, unfunded, and resubmission applications are included as well as summary statements. These confidential documents, edited to ensure compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, not only provide models for the students to follow, but also serve as teaching tools during key sessions of the workshop.

Finally, recommended timelines for each major funding mechanism are created and uploaded, which include specific targeted deadlines as students work on their applications. These timelines are not only helpful for students and their mentors, but they are also key for managing the overall workflow of the research administrators who assist students on their applications. Additionally, because the timing of preparation for the students’ qualifying exams conflicts with standard grant due dates, we create “accelerated” deadlines for those who want to write and submit their grant well ahead of the deadline. See Table 1 for sample “accelerated” and regular timelines for the F31 NRSA.

Table 1.

Fall 2018 Timelines for Submission of NIH NRSA Individual Predoctoral Fellowship (F31) Application

Task / Activity	Timeline
Preliminary Workshop Assignment Due	Week of April 30
Doctoral Student Federal Grant Writing Workshop	Week of May 7
Workshop Follow-up Meeting #1 Assignment Due	Week of June 11
Workshop Follow-up Meeting #1	Week of June 18
Contact Program Official of targeted NIH Institute (See: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/contacts/parent_F31.html)	Between June 18–July 16
Specific Aims for Workshop Follow-up Meeting #2 Due	Week of July 9
Workshop Follow-up Meeting #2	Week of July 16
	Accelerated Deadline	Regular Deadline
SOAR Session request form submitted	Week of July 23	Week of August 13
Specific Aims disseminated to SOAR Session reviewers	Week of July 20	Week of August 20
SOAR Session held*	Week of August 6	Week of August 27
Mock review request form submitted	Week of September 10	Week of October 15
Grant documents disseminated to mock reviewers	Week of September 17	Week of October 22
Mock review held*	Week of September 24	Week of October 29
Complete applications due to GMO	October 25	November 29
Application prepared by GMO and distributed to PI and sponsor(s) for final (i.e., cosmetic) edits	October 26	November 30
Final edits implemented by GMO; application sent to SPA for review and submission to NIH	October 29	December 3
Agency deadline for submission	December 8, 2018
Earliest start date	July 1, 2019

^*SOAR Session and Mock Review can be scheduled earlier in timeline if applicant is ready

Note: NIH = National Institutes of Health; SOAR = Specific Objectives and Aims Review; GMO = Grants Management Office; PI = Principal Investigator; SPA = Sponsored Projects Administration

Structure

The workshop takes place face-to-face across three half-days at the end of the first academic year of coursework (i.e., May or June). This timing is based on the anticipated student need for completion of two semesters to formulate and refine their research focus and dissertation ideas. Our most recent workshop outline is presented in Table 2. The workshop length of time has increased over the years, having been expanded as student grant writing needs are identified, and additions are made based on student evaluations. For example, the first three years of the workshop averaged three to four hours per day; it is now approximately five hours per day plus a one-hour lunch break. Also, two summer follow-up meetings have been added. There are two workshop leaders: one is a faculty member (Director of the PhD Program) and the other is a research administrator (Director of Research and Scholarly Development). While leaders present the bulk of the didactic material and oversee group activities, there are several guest presenters such as faculty members who are experienced NIH reviewers and an Informationist (i.e., librarian with advanced expertise in knowledge management services in the context of biomedical research).

Table 2.

Doctoral Student Federal Grant Writing Workshop Outline

Day and Time	Content	Presenters
Day 1	Overview/Resources/Reviewing and Scoring
30 minutes	Introductions and Overview	Leader(s)
	- Introduce NRSAs, R36s, Diversity Supplements
	- Refining research ideas and choosing sponsors/co-sponsor(s)
	- Advantages to preparing and submitting an application
	- Summer practicum credit
15 minutes	Brief Discussion of Required Readings (Parker & Steeves, 2005; Rawl, 2014; Wisdom, Riley, & Myers, 2015) / Recommended Texts (Gitlin & Lyons, 2014; Hollenbach, 2013)	Group Discussion
30 minutes	Overview of Federal Funding Mechanisms	Leader(s)
	- Choosing the right mechanism
	- Aligning with funder mission
	- Application guidelines
30 minutes	Introduction to Essential Workshop Resources	Leader(s)
30 minutes	Office of Scholarship and Research Development and Grants Management Office	Leader(s); Guest
	- Team introductions	Presenters
	- Services and responsibilities
45 minutes	Firsthand Perspectives from a Grant Reviewer	Guest Faculty
	- What do reviewers look for?	Presenter
	- What annoys reviewers?
	- How to make reviewers ‘happy’
60 minutes	The Review and Scoring Process	Guest Faculty
	- Center for Scientific Review video: https://public.csr.nih.gov/NewsAndPolicy/PeerReviewVideos	Presenter
	- Importance of contacting Program Officer
	- Review and scoring process
	- What do scores mean / how to interpret an ‘unscored’ application?
30 minutes	eRA Commons	Leader(s)
	- https://public.era.nih.gov/commons
	- Completing your profile
	- Reading the status screen
30 minutes	Using the NIH RePORTER Tool	Leader(s)
	- https://projectreporter.nih.gov
Adjourn	Homework
	- Complete all required fields in eRA Commons profile
	- Search NIH RePORTER for F31s/R36s funded in your area of research
	- Review F31 exemplar application
Day 2	A Detailed Walk through Funding Mechanisms/Mentors
30 minutes	Group Discussion of Preliminary Assignment (Appendix 1)	Group Discussion
90 minutes	I. Administrative parts of the F31 and R36	Leader(s)
	- Reference Letters and Cover Letter
	- Project Summary and Project Narrative
	- Bibliography and References Cited
	- Facilities & Other Resources
	Senior/Key Person Profile
	- Fellow and Sponsor(s) Biosketches
	- Sponsor(s), Collaborator(s), and Consultant(s) Section
	○ Letters of Support from Collaborators, Contributors, and Consultants
	- Institutional Environment and Commitment to Training Section
	○ Description of Institutional Environment and Commitment to Training (see boiler plate text)
	- Other Research Training Plan Section
	○ Resource Sharing Plan
	- Budget
	- Appendix
	- Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
	- Recruitment and Retention Plan and Study Timeline
	- Inclusion Enrollment Report
	- Protection of Human Subjects
	- Data and Safety Monitoring Plan
	II. Important Differences for R36
90 minutes	III. Goals for Fellowship Training, Research Training Plan, and Sponsor Sections	Leader(s)
	- Introduction to Application (for Resubmission applications)
	- Applicant’s Background and Goals for Fellowship Training
	○ Doctoral Dissertation and Research Experience
	○ Training Goals and Objectives
	○ Activities Planned Under this Award
	- Research Training Plan Section
	○ Specific Aims
	○ Research Strategy (Significance, Innovation, & Approach)
	○ Respective Contributions
	○ Selection of Sponsor(s) and Institution
	○ Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research
	- Sponsor(s), Collaborator(s), and Consultant(s) Section
	○ Sponsor and Co-Sponsor Statements
	■ Research Support Available
	■ Sponsor’s/Co-Sponsor’s Previous Fellows/Trainees
	■ Training Plan, Environment, Research Facilities
	■ Applicant’s Qualifications and Potential for a Research Career
30 minutes	Thinking ‘Outside the NIH’: Funding Opportunities for Dissertation Work and Beyond	Leader(s)
	- Foundations and professional organizations
	- Options for non-citizens
	- Overview of the Foundation Directory Online: https://fconline.foundationcenter.org
60 minutes	Mentor Session	Faculty
	- Informal discussion of student support, responsibilities, expectations, and timing for writing grant application	Mentors
Adjourn	Homework
	- Review F31 exemplar application and summary statements
	- Complete worksheet on responding to reviewer comments
Day 3	Writing Your Application / Responding to Reviewers
60 minutes	Discussion of Homework Assignment: Responding to F31 Summary Sheets	PhD Students
30 minutes	Review of PI’s Responses to Reviewers	Leader(s)
30 minutes	Perceptions and Pearls of Wisdom from Prior Applicants	Guest Student Presenters
30 minutes	Writing Responsibilities and Workflow: Best Practices	Guest Faculty Presenter
30 minutes	Writing Your Application: Tips to Enhance Productivity	Leader(s)
60 minutes	Creating a My Bibliography Link and Overview of PMCIDs: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53595	Informationist
30 minutes	Review and Discussion of Recommended Timelines	Leader(s)
	- F31 and R36 accelerated versus regular timelines
	- Timing of major milestones during grant preparation process (e.g., SOAR session, mock review, internal and agency deadlines, etc.)
30 minutes	Final Thoughts and Summer Follow-up Meetings	Leader(s)
	- Next Steps
	- Scheduling Workshop Follow-up Meetings
Adjourn

Note: NRSA = National Research Service Award; eRA = electronic research administration; NIH = National Institutes of Health; RePORTER = Research Portfolio Online Reporting; PI = Principal Investigator; PMCID = PubMed Central Reference Number; SOAR = Specific Objectives and Aims Review

Workshop Day 1 provides an overview of the content, grant writing resources available to students, and the grant review and scoring process. It also initiates student interaction with the NIH electronic research administration (eRA) Commons and NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting (RePORTER) Tool. Importantly, students are introduced to a two-part internal review process, which includes a Specific Objectives and Aims Review (SOAR) session and a mock review; these mechanisms, which have been shown to significantly improve the likelihood of grant applications being funded, are described elsewhere (Kulage & Larson, 2018). Day 2 focuses on a detailed “walk through” of funding mechanisms and a mentor session. While faculty mentors are welcome to attend any workshop session, because mentor participation and “buy in” for their mentee considering writing a grant is a critical part of success, all mentors contribute to a one-hour session where they share their expectations and workstyle with mentees while transparently showing support for them to pursue grant writing. Day 3 is dedicated to starting the process of writing the grant application and responding to reviewer comments. An in-depth review of a grant exemplar and its summary statement is conducted, and prior student applicants are invited to share their personal experiences after submitting a grant application. Writing responsibilities, tips, and best practices are presented as well as how to create a MyBibliography link for an NIH biosketch. Finally, recommended timelines are reviewed, and summer follow-up meetings are scheduled.

Over time and in response to feedback from previous cohorts, changes have been implemented to make the workshop more interactive and allow opportunities for students to participate, share their work with their peers, and obtain peer feedback. The workshop now has at least one interactive group activity per day, and small assignments before, during, and after the workshop have been added. For example, students complete a preliminary assignment worksheet (See Appendix 1) on their research focus one week before the workshop. Between workshop sessions, students are given “homework” assignments such as completing their eRA Commons profile and reviewing a grant exemplar and its summary sheets. The workshop also has two interactive 90-minute follow-up meetings during the summer to hold students accountable for progress on their applications and determine who will ultimately be following through with grant submissions in the fall or spring. For the first follow-up meeting, students begin working on their specific aims; address significance and innovation in their project; and draft their biosketch (See Appendix 2 for Follow-up Meeting #1 Assignment Worksheet). At the second follow-up meeting, students simulate a SOAR session in small peer groups to prepare for the required SOAR session they will have with faculty members (See Appendix 3 for Follow-up Meeting #2 Assignment Worksheet).

Methods for Evaluating Workshop Outcomes

Four data sources were assessed to evaluate the workshop; these included participant evaluations following the workshop, subsequent grant submissions, project implementation (i.e., conduct of the project described in the grant submission), and time from PhD program entry to program completion. After each workshop, participants were asked to complete a voluntary, anonymous 10-question evaluation to assess satisfaction and the workshop’s effectiveness for quality improvement purposes, similar to the method used to evaluate standard courses. Institutional Review Board approval was not required. Data on workshop participant grant submissions was tracked in our central grants database, and subsequent information on the status of submitted grants and funding decisions was obtained via e-mail communications with students and faculty mentors. Conduct of the project described in the grant submission – whether or not the project was funded – was tracked in the ProQuest database. Finally, each participant’s time to program completion was tracked in the PhD program database.

RESULTS

Five workshops have been conducted to date (2014–2018) with 28 predoctoral students and one postdoctoral fellow completing the workshop. The average annual cohort size has been six participants (range 3 to 7).

Workshop Evaluations

Twenty-six of 29 (89.7% response rate) participants completed post-workshop evaluations. Figure 1 demonstrates the distinct shift in confidence level in grant writing for participants before and after completing the workshop. Prior to the workshop, the majority of participants (73%) indicated a low or below average confidence level in grant writing; the rest indicated an average confidence level while none felt they had above average or high confidence in this skill. After completing the workshop, the majority (63%) indicated an above average or high confidence level in grant writing with the remaining expressing an average confidence level. None of the participants reported a below average or low confidence level with this skill after the workshop.

Figure 1.

Participant Evaluation Results: Grant Writing Confidence Pre- and Post-Workshop

Figure 2, which presents participants’ grant submission plans pre- and post-workshop, illustrates the change in grant writing confidence level. While less than one-third of students (31%) indicated that they planned to write a grant during the PhD program prior to participating in the workshop, most students (42%) were unsure about their grant writing plans. However, after participating in the workshop, the majority of students (62%) indicated that they now planned to submit a grant application.

Figure 2.

Participant Evaluation Results: Grant Submission Plans Pre- and Post-Workshop

Importantly, all participants who completed the evaluation indicated that the workshop was a valuable use of their time; that the supplemental materials (i.e., resources, handouts, readings, presentations) were effective; and that they would recommend the workshop to their peers. Regarding the length of workshop, the majority of participants (76.9%) thought length was “just right” while two (7.7%) thought it was too short and four (15.4%) thought it was too long.

Open-ended comments included general positive feedback on the workshop such as the fact that it was “insightful,” “valuable,” “clear and understandable,” “extremely useful,” and “very well organized.” Specific suggestions for improvement were provided, often related to a student’s unique situation. Some students felt the workshop should be spread out over a longer period of time, including sessions earlier in the first year of study. Feedback from the first three cohorts who completed the workshop included suggestions for making the workshop more interactive and having the faculty mentors involved; as previously described, we subsequently made changes to the workshop structure to accommodate these requests.

Grant Submissions

Table 3 presents the number and status of grant submissions by participants. Seventeen of 29 (58.6%) participants to date have submitted a total of 21 grant applications (this includes all resubmissions). Eight NIH NRSA Individual Predoctoral Fellowships (F31), one NIH NRSA Individual Postdoctoral Fellowship (F32), four AHRQ R36 Dissertation Grants, two NIH Diversity Supplements (one submitted by the workshop’s only postdoctoral fellow to date), and five to non-federal funders were submitted. Five applications (23.8%) have been funded including two F31 NRSAs and three non-federal grants (i.e., American Cancer Society; Sigma Theta Tau International). Of the applications eligible to be “scored” (i.e., F31, F32, and R36), 10 of 14 (71.4%) received scores while the remaining were unscored. Two applications are currently pending scientific merit review. Two applications were withdrawn: one R36 was prior to the scientific merit review because the student was accepted to the NIH Graduate Partnership Program, and one F31 NRSA received a score in the fundable range but was withdrawn prior to the advisory council round because the student was on track to graduate shortly after the grant would be funded.

Table 3.

Number and Status of Grant Submissions by Participants, Workshop Years 2014–2018

			Status of Submitted Applications (N=21)
Funding Mechanism	Submitted* No.	Scored No. (%)	Pending No. (%)	Withdrawn No (%)	Not Funded No (%)	Funded No. (%)
Federal
NIH F31 Predoctoral NRSA	8	6 (75.0)	--	1 (12.5)†	5 (62.5)	2 (25.0)
NIH F32 Postdoctoral NRSA	1	1 (100.0)	--	--	1 (100.0)	--
AHRQ R36 Dissertation Grant	5	3 (60.0)	2 (40.0)	1 (20.0)‡	2 (40.0)	--
NIH Diversity Supplement	2	N/A	--	--	2 (100.0)	--
Non-Federal§	5	N/A	--	--	2 (40.0)	3 (60.0)
Total	21‖	10 (71.4)¶	2 (9.5)	2 (9.5)	12 (57.2)	5 (23.8)

^*Each resubmission application counted individually

^†F31 application which was being considered for funding was withdrawn from consideration prior to advisory council round because student was graduating

^‡R36 application was withdrawn from consideration prior to scientific merit review because student was accepted to the NIH Graduate Partnership Program

^§Includes applications submitted to the American Cancer Society (n=1), Mathematica (n=1), and Sigma Theta Tau International (n=3)

^‖17 of 29 (58.6%) participants have submitted a total of 21 applications

^¶Of applications eligible to be “scored”, 10 of 14 (71.4%) received scores

Note: NIH = National Institutes of Health; NRSA = National Research Service Award; AHRQ = Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Project Implementation

To date, 12 PhD students who wrote and submitted grants applications as part of the writing workshop have completed the PhD program; nine (75%) conducted the dissertation project proposed in their grants, five (55.6%) of which received external funding. Of the three PhD students who did not conduct the dissertation project proposed in their grant application, one opted to withdraw her application from consideration when she instead received an NIH Graduate Partnership Program award on a different topic. Another was a diversity supplement to her faculty mentor’s R01; when it was not funded, the student opted to conduct a more independent project. The third project not conducted was later deemed unfeasible for several logistic reasons, and the student, in collaboration with faculty mentors, revised the dissertation research plan.

Time to PhD Program Completion

Over the past five years, average time from PhD program entry to completion has been 3.5 ± 0.8 years. The average time decreased from 4.2 ± 1.1 years for those entering the program in fall 2011 to 3.1 ± 0.4 years for those entering the program in 2014 – the year curricular changes were implemented to support feasibility of a more accelerated time to graduation, which included the grant writing workshop. Figure 3 presents the time (in years) from PhD program entry to completion for students who participated in the workshop with no differences in time to program completion for those students who completed and submitted a grant application (n=8) compared to those who did not (n=8) (p=0.06).

Figure 3.

Time from PhD Program Entry to Completion, 2014–2018 Grant Writing Workshop Cohorts. Note: 2014 workshop attended by one second year PhD student

DISCUSSION

The Doctoral Student Federal Grant Writing Workshop has been a value-added adjunct to the PhD program curriculum. Participant evaluations have overwhelmingly indicated that the workshop is a valuable use of their time, and they would recommend the workshop to peers. The workshop not only supports PhD students in their dissertation research but also provides them with best practices in grantsmanship such as promoting interaction with funding agency program officers. Participants are more confident about their grant writing abilities after the workshop and are more likely to submit a grant application as a result. The workshop also provides a forum for student exposure to the institutional infrastructure needed for successful grant submissions, something they may take into consideration in future searches for faculty positions.

Early in the workshop, the highly competitive funding climate is emphasized, and students are told the majority of applications will not be funded. Indeed, data on fiscal year 2017 funding rates for F31 NRSA applications submitted to the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) indicate a success rate of 40.0% (National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research, 2018). Therefore, it is critical to highlight the multiple short- and long-term benefits for students participating in the workshop regardless of whether their submitted grant is subsequently funded. The most important benefit is that the workshop serves as an opportunity to jump-start development, refinement, or crystallization of dissertation research ideas at the end of the first year in the program to help inform students’ research trajectories during the remaining two years. For those who opt to write an F31, R36, or other grant application as a result of the workshop, this activity can fulfill the program’s three-credit summer research practicum requirement with the grant application being the deliverable product for the course, creating a distinct incentive for students. While financial benefits from school’s perspective are also possible as the PhD students may enroll in additional tuition-earning elective coursework as part of their fellowship to support their training plan, the main benefits to the school are non-financial; for example, supporting the PhD students to excel and to some extent improve the school’s ranking in NIH funding.

Even if a student chooses either not to write or is not eligible (e.g., international students) to write a federal grant after the workshop, they have been exposed to basic grant writing strategies which are broadly applicable to other types of non-federal grant writing (e.g., foundation grants) and their dissertation proposal. Skills learned and practiced during the workshop become an asset for a career as an independent researcher, leaving the graduate student better poised for success in subsequent years. Finally, sharing of research ideas among peers that occurs during the workshop models expectations as future faculty members working collaboratively and providing critical reviews to colleagues.

While the benefits are significant, there have been multiple challenges to implementation of the workshop, the biggest of which is the feasibility of funding within an accelerated program. Over the past five years, on average, time from program entry to completion for PhD students has been three and one-half years. Because of the timing of the standard NIH due dates, review dates, and funding cycles (see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/due-dates-and-submission-policies/due-dates.htm), the earliest start date for a funded F31 NRSA is at least nine months after submission; for an AHRQ R36, the time frame is at least eight months. Students typically submit their first applications 15–18 months into the program, and for applications funded on the first submission, this leaves approximately one year to conduct the project for those on track to graduate in three years. Since most applications are not funded on the first submission, the only option for resubmission is if the student elects to extend their time in the program, a delay that carries significant consequences. To counteract these drawbacks, emphasis is placed on work achieved toward the dissertation, and therefore time and effort spent is not wasted. In fact, it is notable that the average time to program completion and graduation for these cohorts has not increased since implementation of the workshop; this suggests that the added time commitment required for writing a grant application during the PhD program does not decrease efficiency in the dissertation process.

Scheduling the workshop can be difficult; it is consistently a challenge to fit a three half-day workshop into already busy faculty and student schedules. We find that planning and scheduling the workshop needs to begin six months in advance to ensure the highest participant and mentor availability and turnout. Although our workshops have historically been held face-to-face to better facilitate interaction, foster learning, and create a ‘community’ for students who decide to move forward with an application, an option to overcome scheduling difficulties would be to allow remote participation. Some of the more robust video conferencing tools with paid subscriptions include Zoom, GoToMeeting™, and Webex™, but others are available free of charge (e.g., Skype, Join.me). Using such technologies, the workshop would be feasible for PhD programs offered by distance learning, and supplemental, online group activities could be added to enhance the workshop for remote participants. Another challenge is that non-citizens are ineligible to apply for most federal awards, including F31s and R36s. To counter this, we tailor workshop material based upon anticipated participants, including sessions on funding opportunities from foundations and professional organizations available to non-citizens. Finally, an important administrative challenge is that application instructions and packages frequently change, and it is time consuming yet essential to review and update all workshop materials annually to ensure accuracy of the information being presented so students utilize the proper forms and follow the appropriate guidance in their grant preparation.

While a well-organized workshop provides a foundation to foster successful grant applications, students do not develop or write F31 and R36 applications in isolation. During this process, the time and effort of research administrative staff, the institutional commitment for allocation of resources, and the contributions of faculty members cannot be underestimated. We are fortunate to have the infrastructure in place to offer training opportunities beyond coursework to our PhD students, and we realize other PhD programs in schools of nursing may not have this advantage. For schools lacking administrative support for such a workshop, we hope that dissemination of our outcomes will serve as a segue for schools to engage in dialogue with leadership to consider an investment in the necessary resources.

The also workshop relies heavily on the involvement and support of faculty mentors in all phases of their students’ writing. The importance of this support is evidenced by findings of a recent survey study which reported that the most influential factor contributing to a school of nursing PhD program not adopting a manuscript option dissertation format is a lack of PhD faculty support (Graves et al., 2018). Thus, the robust commitment and significant time provided by our PhD faculty to their students participating the workshop has been highly influential in its effectiveness. Indeed, mentors spend considerable time working with their students prior to the workshop by refining research questions; during the workshop by providing support and attending the mentor session; and after the workshop by guiding grant development and aiding in the necessary writing and re-writing to enhance the application’s competitiveness. In fact, in a prior examination of time and costs of grant writing (Kulage et al., 2015), it was estimated that 38 hours of administrative staff time was devoted to one F31 NRSA application, a time commitment similar to that of R01 applications. While faculty mentor time was not formally tracked in that study for feasibility reasons, mentor time allocation is likely similar or perhaps even greater. Without that, a student cannot be successful in grant writing regardless of participation in a workshop. In addition, faculty effort spent in the workshop is not calculated as part of designated teaching effort; rather, school leadership views such non-revenue-generating educational activities as part of a faculty member’s mentorship responsibilities. By promoting a culture that recognizes the importance of training and development opportunities for PhD students outside the traditional classroom setting, we have not encountered challenges with faculty participation. Finally, we are fortunate that most, if not all, of our current PhD faculty have grant writing experience and most have federally funded projects - many schools that have PhD programs do not. Schools of nursing need to consider these issues when planning to embark on the student grant writing journey.

CONCLUSION

In summary, careful consideration of timing and mentor participation are key to workshop success. Regardless of whether formal grant applications are completed and submitted as a product of the workshop, the work performed during the workshop not only launches the dissertation writing process, but also serves as an important pathway for efficient completion of PhD requirements for students. We recommend that schools of nursing implement federal grant writing workshops to expand the scholarly productivity of their PhD students and support their dissertation work.

Highlights.

We created a federal grant writing workshop in a nursing PhD program.

Seventeen of 29 PhD students have submitted 21 applications; five have been funded.

The workshop efficiently supports nursing PhD students in dissertation research.

Nursing schools should consider implementing a PhD program grant writing workshop.

Appendix 1. Doctoral Student Federal Grant Writing Workshop Preliminary Assignment Worksheet

PhD Student Name: _________________________________

Mentor Name: _________________________________

Provide the broad topic of your research (i.e., what are you focusing on?):

Provide 3 reasons why this research topic is important (2–3 sentences for each):

1.

2.

3.

Provide evidence from the literature to support the importance of the topic (list 5 references):

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Appendix 2. Doctoral Student Federal Grant Writing Workshop Follow-up Meeting #1 Assignment Worksheet

Applicant Name: _________________________________

Grant Mechanism: _____ F31 _____ R36 _____ Other (Specify: ________________)

Target NIH Institution (for F31 only): __________________________________________

Application Title:

Briefly describe how your project aligns with the priorities of the funding institution (e.g., NIH/NINR, AHRQ):

Mentor:

Co-Mentor(s):

Provide brief rationale for choice of co-mentor(s):

Provide name, affiliation, and brief rationale for 3 references (for F31 only):

Name:

Affiliation:

Rationale:

Name:

Affiliation:

Rationale:

Name:

Affiliation:

Rationale:

Name at least 2 additional courses you would propose taking during your fellowship:

1.

2.

Provide names of 3 potential SOAR Session Reviewers (Note: These should not be mentors, co-mentor(s), or reference; can be faculty outside the School of Nursing):

1.

2.

3.

List 3 ways in which you would support the Significance of your proposed project:

1.

2.

3.

List 1 way in which your proposed project is Innovative:

Name/describe/draw the conceptual model that will guide your project:

Provide your proposed Specific Aims (bulleted list only):

•

•

Attach a draft of your NIH Biosketch

Note: SOAR = Specific Objectives and Aims Review; NIH = National Institutes of Health; NINR = National Institute of Nursing Research; AHRQ = Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Appendix 3. Doctoral Student Federal Grant Writing Workshop Follow-up Meeting #2 Worksheet – Guidance for SOAR Sessions

As you read your peers’ Specific Aims documents, please consider the follow points as guidance for each SOAR Session, identifying areas in which the applicant could strengthen their presentation of their aims. You are welcome to write out answers and suggestions and given them to your peers, but you are not required to.

Principal Investigator: __________________________________

Peer Reviewer: __________________________________

1. Does the PI effectively ‘set the big picture’ or identify the central challenge in the field of study that needs to be solved?

2. Does the PI describe what has been done or is currently being done in the field to solve the problem / address the issue?

3. Does the PI identify the ‘gap’ in the field that the study is intended to fill?

4. Does the PI detail how their study will address this gap?

5. Does the PI explain why they/their mentor(s)/co-mentor(s) are well-suited to conduct this study?

6. Does the PI present a single ‘goal’ or ‘objective’ statement that their specific aims are intended to accomplish?

7. Do the specific aims indicate ‘how’ they will accomplish their overall ‘goal’ or ‘objective’?

8. Are the specific aims actionable, credible, feasible, and realistic?

9. Does the PI specify what will potentially change or improve in the field if the study is successful?

10. Does the PI address how/why the topic of study is fits within the mission of the funding institute or organization?

Note: SOAR = Specific Objectives and Aims Review; PI = Principal Investigator