10 Red Flags in Grant Writing

Jude Mikal and Sarah Grace, Inside Higher Education.com / October 23, 2019 | Posted on October 25, 2019

Grant writing can occupy a disproportionate amount of faculty time and energy

"A humdrum response from reviewers of your grant proposal can set off a cascade of questions and self-doubt. Did the reviewers not like your research question, or was your approach lacking? Did you effectively communicate the specific contributions of your research to science, or were you too focused on the broad social impacts? [...]

But what if the biggest issues impacting the quality of your grant proposals are not grant-writing problems at all? By being aware of 10 red flags in grant writing, you can avoid a so-so response to yours."

No. 1: Hyperfocusing. [...]

No. 2: Resistance to feedback. [...] 

No. 3: Decision paralysis. [...]

No. 4: Conducting problem, not solution, research. [...]

No. 5: Excluding readers. [...]

No. 6: Hoarding mentorship. [...]

No. 7: Tearing down, not building up. [...] 

No. 8: Generalizing. [...]

No. 9: Conveyor belts. [...]

No. 10: Perfectionism. [...]

"Avoiding these 10 red flags will help make sure that time and energy is well spent. In many cases, looking beyond your written proposal and examining your overall approach to research may be the most effective strategy."

Source: https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2019/10/23/how-write-more-effective-grant-proposals-opinion

Jude Mikal is a research scientist at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. He has worked for 10 years as an on-site grant reviewer, consulting with faculty and designing programs aimed at educating faculty on best practices in grant-proposal writing. Sarah Grace is a Ph.D. student and teaching and learning resource specialist in the Office of Academic Affairs at the University of Arizona.

Modified on July 03, 2024