Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Apr 20.
Published in final edited form as: Health Promot Pract. 2020 Feb 26;21(6):865–871. doi: 10.1177/1524839920907554

TABLE 2.

Challenges, Strategies and Lessons Learned From the Development of a Pilot Research Award Process for Early Stage Investigators

Challenges Strategies for Addressing Challenges Lessons Learned
Notice of award received 3 months into Year 1 Developed a mini-pilot research project option for Y1
Released Y1 pilot and Y2 pilot RFPs concurrently
Anticipate a shortened Y1 and recognize the need to be flexible and creative
Extended NIH review time Spoke with the NIH project officer about optimal times for reviewing projects
Identified options for no cost extensions
Started the proposal process as early as possible
Reach out to project officers early and often and meet in person when possible
Advocate on behalf of pilot project awardees
Lack of qualified applications Conducted active recruitment
Challenged TREE Center leadership to identify, encourage, and cultivate applicants
Maintained contact with unsuccessful applicants and encouraged them to reapply
Strategize with colleagues on mechanisms for identifying and fostering applicants
Limited experience engaging with community health practitioners Connected researchers with public health practitioners and facilitated codevelopment of research Establish an environment where researchers and practitioners interact and colearn together
Lack of grant writing skills Provided detailed templates for applicants to use as a guide
Encouraged applicants to work with mentors to write applications
Conducted research roundtables focused on grant writing and critiquing applications
Establish processes that support and encourage new investigators
Insufficient mentoring by mentors postaward Provided materials and expectations to mentors following awards
Actively engaged mentors in the TREE Center and the mentoring process
Delineate mentor expectations at the outset
Do not depend on new investigators to engage sufficiently with mentors on their own
Contact mentors and remind them of their roles
Limited number of URM mentors Actively identified, engaged and recruited potential mentors Anticipate that many URM mentors may be overextended
Recognize that mentors do not need to identify as URM to provide high quality, supportive mentorship to new URM investigators
Institutional barriers to working across multiple campus Learned processes across both campuses (e.g., IRB applications; faculty salary buy-out)
Worked with TREE Center leadership to recruit new investigators across both campuses
Held meetings on both campuses
Collaborate with individuals at multiple levels of the institution
Anticipate differences and establish strong communication across campuses
Multilevel, community-engaged, intervention research is difficult to accomplish in 1-year time frame Connected potential researchers with communities with established relationships
Provided PIs with technical assistance and guidance
Look for opportunities to build on current relationships and work
Provide training on concepts of multilevel, community-engaged and intervention research
Time for PIs to devote to pilot research projects Provided clear information about time commitments and expectations
Reminded researchers of obligations
Assist researchers with time management
Develop systems to reduce administrative load on PIs
Provide new PIs with realistic expectations regarding research
Difficulty integrating pilot research projects into other TREE Center activities Invited awardees to present on their work at TREE Center meetings
Provided awardees with opportunities to network with other TREE Center personnel
Invited awardees to attend all TREE Center meetings
Provide value-added activities so that new investigators want to participate and engage
Disseminate information on pilot projects to TREE Center members and communities

NOTE: NIH = National Institutes of Health; TREE = Transdisciplinary Research, Equity and Engagement Center; URM = underrepresented minority populations; IRB = institutional review board; PI = principal investigator.