What makes for a successful training grant application?
The following points are based on a review of some successful (3) and unsuccessful (3) training grant applications related to topics covered by the Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction for the Autumn 2001 call for proposals. We thank the various teams of applicants who agreed to this exercise. We trust that these observations will be helpful to future applicants but stress that they are offered from the perspective of members of the Training and Education Focus Group of the Institute Advisory Board (IAB) only. In keeping with CIHR principles, the actual review process is undertaken through peer review committees totally separate from the IABs. We thank Alain Lesage and Jack Jhamandas in particular for their work in offering these observations.
1. Successful applications were first great pieces of grantmanship.
From start to end one could see the vision of what the training program aimed for, what trainees would be exposed to and how unique and relevant this would be. In one application the vision was one of a new frontier in knowledge, high on scientific techniques, clearly cutting- edge and shown as such. In another application, the clinical theme was presented as a very important one and one that requires a cross-pillars effort and that exposing trainees to all those cross pillars dimensions would develop a new generation of scientists. Again the vision was clear from the start and then each element of the training package was intertwined in a clear and rich matrix.
2. Read the instructions !
A successful application responded to all the points raised in the training program guide. None of the key points was left vague. On the contrary, key points from the instructions were always addressed with some specific examples even though not all the details could be provided: but this would be developed during the program if successful. Successful applicants did not try to squeeze in as much information using small fonts and smaller than specified margins - all of which detract from the readability of the grant.
Unsuccessful applications were imprecise on some of the key dimensions described in the guide. The worst thing to do was to indicate that your kind of application cannot fit within CIHR framework !
3. Focus nationally and on excellence
All the applications, successful and unsuccessful tried to be national in terms of involving more than one university and more than one city. However, successful ones had not necessarily tried to cover all provinces. Successful programs rested on various sites which were all centers of excellence. There was no thin ice in any of the successful applications. For example, one application demonstrated that all participating centers have received Canadian Foundation for Innovation grants, which indicate both excellence but also their capacity to guest a new generation of scientists in a renewed and well-equipped environment. Another successful application showed that all participating centers were of excellence and had a tremendous track record of both collaboration between centers and of training.
4. High training capacity
Successful applications were characterized by an important training capacity. For example one center aiming at having six new PhD and postdoctoral students was already having an output of 20 to 25 PhD postgraduate students a year. In another application one could read that collectively the participating centers had trained over 100 PhD students over the past five years. In such situations proposing 10 to 20 new students seemed possible. These applications also listed a number of mentors and collaborators commensurate with the task of training the number of students. In one unsuccessful application, it seemed that aiming for an output of 40 trainees with a mentorship portfolio of less than 10 mentors and collaborators raised a doubt about capacity to deliver excellent training to all.
Successful grants described in detail the training record of both their centres and mentors. They fulfilled the key criteria of having a " stellar record of training ".
5. Clear vision of what the trainees would be exposed to
Successful applications allowed readers to see clearly what the trainees would be exposed to. They proposed an exciting program from the point of view of trainees. Either they would be exposed to cutting edge technology at the frontier of knowledge or be part of the creation of new frontiers or they would be exposed in a unique way to different perspectives and become members of an enterprise to deal in a unique way on a very important and noble clinical and social issue.
Successful applications involved programs where the trainees would have a lot of direct contact with mentors and other members of the training grant program. One interesting idea was for trainees from different cities to benefit from a flat supported by the grant for their three months practical in other cities of participating sites of the program. We can imagine that this arrangement would allow trainees from across the country to actually share their experience and to network whilst part of a rich training experience.
6. Trans-disciplinary
All applications tried to show their trans-disciplinarity. Trans-disciplinarity did not mean covering the four CIHR pillars. For example one successful application was clearly and only focussed on the biomedical research pillar. However, most successful applications incorporated at least two of the pillars. Unsuccessful grants described trans-disciplinarity and some even tried to cover the four pillars but this was not intertwined well enough with the vision and gave the impression that it was more responding to an outside demand than following the very nature of the scientific task of the area.
7. Well established record of collaboration
Successful applicants were able to show that the mentors were already collaborating or, in some cases, are involved in a network.
8. Very rich environment.
Successful grants went to already rich environments for which the training grant would come as " topping ". This may seem as a caricature but success attracts success. Successful environments were very well funded centres of excellence which already had a great capacity for training. The training grant program would come either as underlining and fostering this excellence to training and would help them to clearly become national or even international models in the area of training. The training grant program would help them to push the excellence one step further. It was also clear that the successful centers were already training people, would, with the grant, enhance their capacity, and would largely be sustainable event if the grant was terminated.
9. The Canadian advantage
Successful applications showed the cutting advantage or the excellence of Canada in the domain of the grant application. Such a program would be attractive to trainees from Canada or from abroad. Unsuccessful applications did not tell well enough what would be the Canadian advantage. For example one unsuccessful application in health services failed to describe the Canadian health cares system as an asset ; it could also have described how knowledge transfer experiments by their consortium was actually quite unique. It could have shown that the Canadian health care system is a wonderful lab both for Canadian and international trainees, in health services research or in clinical research! Excellence is not only the mentors but also the lab.
10. Opportunities for trainees outside those specifically funded.
Successful applications show that their training grant program would be open to trainees outside those who would be funded by the training grant program. The training grant program would have a multiplier effect.
11. Summer Institutes: A common training element
All applications suggested some type of summer institute to bring together mentors, and trainees. These summer courses, workshops, public awareness programs and their dissemination were desirable elements.
12. Part of a larger scheme.
A strong point to make is how the training grant is part of a larger strategy for participating research teams, helping to develop collaboration and networking.
13. Danger of creating a new degree.
One unsuccessful application suggested creating a new certification for the training that would be offered. This new certificate seemed perilous from the start in terms of sustainability without the long-term help of the training program; it was also quite ambitious. This put the trainees at risk of being left with a certificate that may not be recognised even nationally not to say internationally.
Successful applications allowed trainees to get something above already excellent training programs in their respective university and research lab programs. In that sense, the successful grants were conservative from the point of view of innovation with regards to university degrees and diplomas.
14. Dual mentorship for each trainee
Dual mentorship arrangements helped successful applications in underlining trans-disciplinarity and collaboration.
15. Seniors and rising stars
Successful applications presented both senior and rising stars, giving the vision for trainees of a continuum and again of a rich training environment now and tomorrow.
16. Innovative, not more of the same
Successful proposals were innovative, identified a specific need for the program and its benefits. They were not merely an enhancement of an existing program or network.
17. Specific
Specific responsibilities concerning training were spelled out for each participating applicant, including mentors. Likewise, identification of partnerships (including institutional commitments) and their specific contributions and role were desirable elements.
18. Building in evaluation plans is a must
Specific measures of evaluation were included whereby outcomes of the training program could be measured.
