Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study investigates the potential of European universities as hosts for Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) grantees. Factors explaining both the probability of a university hosting an MSCA grantee and its extent are estimated using a zero-inflated negative binomial regression model. Results reveal that the probability of hosting MSCA grantees increases significantly with excellence (research performance), size and country group of the university. In addition, a deepening of excellence (citations), international orientation and the teaching burden (student-staff ratio) are significant predictors for the extent of grantees. Based on the estimates, the relative performance of a university is identified by use of a frontier production function. This reveals that some universities in the Northwest of Europe host more MSCA grantees than would have been expected given their attributes, and certain top universities host fewer. These results could be related to marketing and support activities that partially offset the importance of research performance or alternative models for financing.

Grant funding is essential to the advancement of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields with certain grants viewed as especially prestigious and career formative. The goal of this project was twofold: first to describe the gender demographics of the national winners of two prestigious grants and second, to document the impact of an educational program aimed at improving the success for women in STEM fields in a local setting. In Study 1, we analyzed publicly available national data to document gender gaps in National Science Foundation’s Faculty Early Career Development Program (CAREER) and National Institutes of Health’s K01 awards from 2008-2021. Results showed that, while the ratio of K01 awards favored women, the ratio of men-to-women CAREER awardees favored men. In Study 2, we implemented a grant-writing program for CAREER awards based in self-determination theory at one university and analyzed its impact on funding success. Results comparing before the educational program and after showed that the average annual success rate increased for everyone from 11% to 33%. Women-identified faculty who participated in the program were awarded CAREER funding at a higher rate than would be expected from the number of women eligible to apply or submission rates. While the correlational and observational nature of this study make it impossible to conclude that it was only the educational programs that resulted in the benefits to women’s award success, we encourage other universities to consider adapting the program and enable faculty development around grant success.

Background Despite increasing student interest in global health, undergraduate opportunities remain limited and often lack practical, multidisciplinary experiences. To address professional gaps for future healthcare professionals and global health workers, it is crucial to incorporate resource management, business practices, and leadership into undergraduate volunteer service-learning programs. Methods Lay First Responders (LFR) International’s Fellowship Program in Emergency Medical Care and Innovation (ECMI) trains undergraduates to develop community-based emergency medical services in low- and middle-income countries, focusing on global capacity building, service leadership, and cultural competency. The year-long program guides fellows through a three-stage process of skill-development, design, and project implementation. The curriculum encompasses four main educational components: (1) professional development and networking, (2) global health education, (3) scientific research, and (4) internationally engaged collaboration. Program assessment was conducted through thematic analysis of open-ended survey responses from fellows at the beginning and end of their fellowship year. Results Since 2019, 22 fellows have completed the program, acquiring skills in research, teaching, and writing publications and grants. Surveys of the 2022 and 2023 cohorts revealed that all nine participants accomplished their intended goals during the fellowship, with over half expressing a desire to continue working with LFR International. The program’s success is further evidenced by the fellows contributing to 17 academic outputs, securing $31,000 in funding, and their placement in advanced degree programs. Conclusions The EMCI Fellowship has been well received and effective in addressing gaps in global health education. This model could be replicated by comparable global health non-governmental organizations to implement programs while immersing undergraduate students in hands-on international collaboration and operational management experiences. Future development should expand fellowship concentrations to additional global health fields and assess the long-term impacts of the program.

The NRMN STAR program was created to address the persistent underrepresentation in grant submissions and receipt of National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards by racial/ethnic minority groups. In our current study, we assessed program impact on trainees’ self-efficacy related to grant writing. The program was conducted with two cohorts: one in June 2014 and one in June 2015. We used a 19-item grant writing self-efficacy scale drawn from the 88-item Clinical Research Assessment Inventory of three domains (conceptualizing, designing, and funding a study) to predict whether self-efficacy influences researchers’ grant submissions. Trainees were assessed prior to and following program completion with subsequent assessments at 6 and 12 months beyond participation. The majority of trainees were Black (62%), female (62%), and had obtained a PhD (90%). More than half (52%) were assistant professors and 57% had none or <1 year of research experience beyond postdoctoral training. However, 24% of trainees reported no postdoctoral research training. NRMN STAR trainees’ self-efficacy significantly improved on all three domains exhibiting a 2.0-point mean change score on two domains (conceptualizing and design) and 3.7 point mean change score on the domain, funding a study. Findings suggest that NRMN’s STAR provides impactful, confidence-building training for diverse, early stage investigators with little-to-no skills, experiences, or low self-efficacy in writing research grants.

This qualitative case study examined how a multimodal professional network environment (STEM for all Video Showcase) affected five STEM educational researchers’ capacity to engage in grant funded research at U.S. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Guided by the social capital and professional network literature as a conceptual framework, we analyzed data from surveys, interviews, and online discussion posts. We aimed to understand HBCU-based researchers’ supports and barriers in writing and/or conducting grant funded research in STEM education, and ways in which the multimodal professional network experience supported their research and professional networking, if at all. We found that organizational structures shaped participants’ social capital as well as their grant funded research activities. Further, participating in a multimodal professional network enabled participants to further develop their research capacity and to also expand their collegial networks. We offer recommendations for institutions to support the research endeavors of their faculty and suggest ways in which organizations using or developing professional multimodal networks can enhance faculty research development.

Although existing scholarship offers critical insights into the working mechanisms of project-based research funding, little is known about the actual practice of writing grant proposals. Our study seeks to add a longitudinal dimension to the ongoing debate on the implications of competitive research funding by focusing on the incremental adjustment of the funder/fundee relationship around a common discursive practice that consists in describing and evaluating research projects: How has the perception of what constitutes a legitimate funding claim changed over time and why? By investigating the normative framework enacted in the justification strategies of applicants, we shed light on the historical coevolution of the increasing competition for project funding, the epistemic culture of applicants, and grant writing rhetoric. To do this, we mobilize a comprehensive data set consisting of archival data from Europe's oldest and largest funding agency, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, as well as a corpus of 80 successful grant proposals written between 1975 and 2005. We find that the 1990s mark an important normative consolidation of what we consider to be a legitimate funding claim: Ensuring the success of the project and the project's results becomes a major concern in applicant rhetoric. This time period coincides with a substantive rise in the level of competition for project funding. Yet, even though justification strategies might seem to address the same issues in grant proposals across the disciplines under investigation, the normative framework to which applicants refer differs according to the applicant's epistemic culture.

Measuring the level of institutional capacity for grantsmanship within higher education informs administrators about the needs of their organization and where resources and institutional supports can be implemented to support faculty and staff. Receiving grant funding can lead to implementing cuttingedge programming and research support, which could improve the quality of education provided and, ultimately, student retention. While conducting an institutional capacity needs assessment is crucial for making data-informed decisions, there is a significant gap in institutional capacity research; specifically, there is no valid and reliable assessment tool designed to measure institutional capacity for grantsmanship. The present study aims to develop an assessment tool for higher education institutions to evaluate support systems and identify the needs of their faculty and administrators for grant writing efforts. The current study used a mixed-method approach over three phases to understand the indicators behind measuring institutional capacity for grantsmanship. We developed six reliable scales--promoting grant proposal writing, proposal writing (for faculty), proposal writing (for administrators), proposal writing (all respondents), submitting grant proposals, implementing grant activities, and managing awards. This study contributes to our understanding of institutional capacity and produced a reliable assessment tool to support grantsmanship.

Background: Expertise in scientific and grant writing are essential in health science research and practice. Quality scientific and grant writing are uncommon in Uganda which is partly responsible for the low quality and quantity of research outputs. To address this, the Makerere University Walter Reed Project (MUWRP) implemented Strengthening Institutional Capacity for Research Administration in Uganda (SICRA). Methods: SICRA conducted 3-day face-to-face and virtual training workshops in scientific and grant writing targeting early-career scientists (ECS) at institutions involved in health research and graduate training in Uganda. Mentorship and follow-up were by phone call, email and face-to-face meetings as required. To determine the effect of SICRA interventions, we conducted a quasi-experimental impact assessment among trainees using a semi-structured questionnaire. Results: 245 ECS attended SICRA workshops on grant writing (37.2%), scientific writing (33.3%), or both (28.2%). Seventy-eight trainees (32%) participated in the impact assessment. A majority of respondents (60.3%) had a master's degree; 83% were full-time employees at a research or academic institution and 97.4% were involved in health research. Before SICRA, only 34.6% of respondents had written a manuscript, 19.2% had submitted at least one manuscript for institutional internal review and 25.6% had been published. After SICRA, 66.7% had written a manuscript (p<0.001), 51.3% had submitted a manuscript for internal review (p<0.001) and 38.5% were published (p=0.064). Before SICRA, only 37.2% had submitted a grant proposal, 24.4% had won a grant and 43.6% had participated in grant writing teams. After SICRA, 64.1% had submitted a grant proposal (p<0.001), 42.3% had received funding (p=0.011), and 62.8% were participating in grant writing teams (p=0.02). Conclusions: SICRA improved ECS scientific and grant writing which led to increased research output. The 3-day training approach is appropriate for Uganda and similar LMICs. Keywords: early-career scientists, scientific/grant writing, research administration

Background: The content presents a conceptually powerful and attractive framework for understanding the proposal development process to capture the complexity of the steps that contribute to successful grant writing. Based on experiences from 15 years in research administration and using real-life examples, the author juxtaposes the diverse roles required of grants professionals in creating a competitive grant application. In the context of increasing university emphasis on attracting extramural grant funding, this timely article focuses on proposal development skills using a step-by-step process including a six-part analysis of each role within the framework, dividing the role into primary subtopics all highly relevant to each specific role. By deconstructing the art of grantsmanship, the whole suite of proposal development processes is considered with this approach with the intention that research development professionals will have solid actionable guidance in a cohesively planned delivery to capture the intricate mechanisms that translate to successful grantsmanship and acquire a set of tools to use to train grant seekers. Keywords: Grantsmanship; Writing; Proposal Development Process; Research Administration