- Karen Fletcher, Appalachian State University
- Katie Howard, Appalachian State University
Thanks to our session scribe, Suzanne Lodato, Indiana University Bloomington!
Key points from the session. We learned:
- Unsuccessful programming gives you an opportunity to rethink and revise your programming and move forward.
- If you observe your audience while you are facilitating a program, you will see it is obvious when they are beginning to lose focus. Exercises like stretching breaks can help participants refocus.
- Sometimes it is more effective to split longer workshops into smaller, more digestible sessions. For example, for finding funding, an overview session can be followed up by a separate hands-on funding database workshop.
- Often a single session is more effective than a series of multiple sessions, particularly if you can gather some feedback within the single session. Participants tend to drop out of multi-week programs.
- Workshops that require registration draw much better participation than drop-in workshops.
What did you hear at this presentation that surprised you?
- Appalachian State is a PUI, but is currently recruiting more faculty who are “research intensive.”
- Most participants who attend a finding funding workshop do not think it works well.
- A two hour finding funding workshop tends to be ineffective because too much material is presented in one sitting and people lose focus.
What were the most interesting questions asked by audience members, and what was the presenters’ response?
- For finding funding, some research development professionals encourage faculty to set up profiles before attending a hands-on database session.
- What didn’t work: one person organized drop-in days for consultations on finding funding that were poorly attended.
- Appalachian State has a separate office for undergrad research.
What else from this session should NORDP members know?
Here are two grant writing workshop models that worked well:
- A multi-week program that required a sign-off from the faculty member’s department chair. Participants submitted a white paper to apply for the workshop, and the white papers were judged by means of a competitive process. Faculty had to commit to attending a specified minimum number of sessions. Participants identified a scientific mentor. Staff identified a senior mentor with whom the participant met once a month. Participants were also mentored by staff and peers. Only senior mentors were paid, because they had to meet with participants once per month and report back. Mentoring and accountability to the mentor were the reasons for the success of the program. Participants talked about more than just their current proposal with their mentor, so they developed their career paths, too.
- Short, internal grant writing workshops 1.5 hours in length. The grant program is reviewed in the session, and participants spend time discussing their proposal ideas to receive feedback. An exercise may encourage participants to write for a very short period of time (e.g., 90 seconds), but they are not required to write during the workshop.