Volume LV, Number 2
Faculty Perceptions: A Mixed Method Look into Grant Proposal Writing
Julie Swaringim-Griffin, PhD
Assistant Vice President for Central Sponsored Programs Administration
Oklahoma State University
Christine Johnson, PhD
Associate Vice President for Research
Oklahoma State University
Abstract
Faculty members at academic institutions are typically expected to participate in service, teaching, and research throughout their careers. Each of these expectations involves a multitude of activities, contributing to each of the areas of focus. With the recent emphasis on grant funding, this research sought to identify faculty perceptions of the purpose of grant writing. Participants of this study include both tenured and tenure-track faculty as well as STEM and non-STEM faculty. Using a mixed-method design, comparisons between tenure and tenure-track faculty were made as well as comparisons between STEM and non-STEM faculty. The overall project looked at the various myths and truths of grant writing and the purpose of grant writing per faculty perceptions. A total of 104 participants were involved in the study. Overall, the quantitative results indicate slight differences among STEM/non-STEM faculty regarding the six truths that were researched. Additionally, three themes emerged from the qualitative data indicating that faculty perceive the purpose of grant funding to be (1) to sustain/ support their own research, (2) to support/mentor graduate students, and (3) to advance science.
Keywords: grant proposal writing; perceptions; faculty
Introduction
When discussing the purpose or need for grants with faculty members, faculty suggest a wide variety of reasons to pursue grant funding. Many indicate that freedom in conducting research and the ability to employ students to assist in conducting research are motivating factors that contribute to their decision to pursue grant funding (Sehlaoui et al., 2021). Additionally, faculty have reported that without grant funding their research may not be possible because their institutional resources are limited (Bloch et al., 2014). Therefore, due to grant funding, their research was able to be sustained. Grants can also be a contributing factor in receiving recognition for research activity and provide the opportunity to work with other researchers in their field (Bloch et al., 2014).
According to data provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in the fiscal year 2022, 54,571 research project grant applications were submitted with 11,311 being awarded (Lauer, 2023). This translates to a 20.7% success rate for NIH grants (Lauer, 2023). The success rate is calculated by dividing the total number of awards by the total number of applications received. For fiscal year 2022, the National Science Foundation (NSF) reported a total of 39,143 submitted proposals with 10,971 new awards being issued, translating to a 28% success rate for approved NSF grants. These statistics alone show how difficult it is to obtain funded projects but also the importance of understanding the grant writing process for the submission of a successful application. Along with the difficulty of obtaining funded research projects, there are many barriers that faculty face before beginning the grant writing process. These barriers can hinder faculty in their ability to effectively submit a grant. Additionally, myths regarding grant submission may prevent faculty from submitting for grant funding in the first place.
Faculty Involvement in Grant Proposal Writing
The grant writing experience begins with selecting an area of interest and then selecting a funding opportunity. The proposal development stage can be difficult, complex, and confusing. Writing for grant funding is a completely different skill set compared to the academic writing to which faculty are accustomed (Porter, 2007; Walden & Bryan, 2010). Grant writing is much different than academic writing as grant writing focuses on the future and research to be conducted whereas academic writing typically involves writing about research that the faculty member has already conducted (Porter, 2007; Walden & Bryan, 2010). Grant writing requires skills such as structuring text in a clear, concise, and compelling way to achieve the desired outcome of securing research funding (Cunningham, 2020).
Faculty members at academic institutions are typically expected to participate in service, teaching, and research throughout their careers. Each of these expectations involves a multitude of activities from publishing research in journals or creating chapters in textbooks to fundraising and networking with colleagues and others from external organizations (such as industry, government agencies, and others). Holding a faculty position is a significant responsibility that requires effort to be placed toward a variety of mechanisms to sustain one’s path to tenure. Tenure was traditionally developed to sustain academic freedom and thereby allow faculty members to pursue research without fear of scrutiny (Premeaux, 2011). Research conducted by Premeaux (2011) found that both tenured and non-tenure track faculty agree with the traditional use of tenure thus supporting the tenure-track approach. In the pursuit of tenure, faculty are expected to perform at the highest level in service, teaching, and research (Nir & Zilberstein-Levy, 2006). As mentioned previously, the overwhelming amount of work faculty face can contribute to the development of barriers which prevent faculty from engaging in grant development activities.
The process of applying for funding can look vastly different between tenure and pre-tenured faculty. For example, pre-tenured faculty are more likely to apply for institutional-based funding at the start of their careers compared to faculty with tenure, who are more likely to apply for federal funding which is more rigorous and requires a significant amount of time (Delaney & Gibson, 2019). For pre-tenured faculty, institutional funding is a logical way to secure experience in writing grants, creating budgets, and managing the work associated with funded research (Delaney & Gibson, 2019). This process can help build confidence among pre-tenured faculty to progress toward more difficult funding sources. Many universities offer research support mechanisms, such as research management and administrators or sponsored programs personnel that can assist faculty in the development of their grant proposals. Furthermore, these support systems and resources can respond to queries and questions, assist faculty in proposal development, award management, and many other responsibilities to ensure faculty are progressing effectively with their research portfolio (Monahan et al., 2023). Many individuals in this type of role report the value of research as contributing to why they stay in a role that supports researchers (Poli et al., 2023). This is a highly valuable resource for faculty seeking external funding. Faculty in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields are more likely to seek grant funding for their research compared to non-STEM faculty. One of the reasons for this is that STEM fields place a major focus on seeking funding from external sources, which is often a requirement to legitimize faculty work (Byrne & Cave, 2020). Within the STEM field, receiving funded support for research is often a criterion for promotion and tenure, whereas for non-STEM faculty some value is still placed on funded research, but it is not always a requirement to progress through one’s career (Byrne & Cave, 2020). Nevertheless, many non-STEM faculty still seek funding for their research to support the student experience and further their research activities (Bryne & Cave, 2020).
Faculty Perceptions of Grant Proposal Writing
Funding agencies provide faculty members with monetary support to conduct research that supports the relevant agency’s mission (Russell & Morrison, 2010). Therefore, it is imperative that faculty understand the mission of the funding agency from which they are seeking funding and consequently their application should clearly show how the proposed research is relevant to the mission. With a recent increase in emphasis on grant writing in academia, it is important to understand faculty perceptions of grant activities (Pinto & Huizinga, 2018).
In a recent systemic literature review, thirteen articles referring to barriers and facilitators of grant writing were analyzed. The analysis found eight factors that are essential for facilitating grant writing or factors that may serve as barriers to grant writing (Goff-Albritton et. al, 2022). The factors ranged from institutional grant support to scholarly networks. One interesting factor, time commitments, was mentioned and is one of the most reported obstacles that faculty face when writing grants as shown in other studies (Goff-Albritton et. al, 2022, Sehlaoui et al., 2020). Due to their extraneous workloads, available time is limited and often results in grant writing being avoided. Faculty feel that due to high teaching loads, they are not able to fully commit to being a competitive researcher (Surratt et al., 2011). Many faculty members cite service and teaching load as aspects of their job requirements that take priority over the grant writing process (Pinto & Huizing, 2018; Surratt et al., 2011). Walden and Bryan (2010) investigated the motivators and barriers faculty experience during the grant writing process in which faculty reported barriers such as a lack of support to respond to RFPs in a timely manner and teaching load as a time constraint to completing proposals. On the other hand, Walden & Bryan (2010) found that faculty reported money for travel, exploring new research topic areas, potential funding for graduate assistants, and building professional reputation were all key motivators in their pursuit of writing grants. Indeed, a qualitative study revealed similar barriers (Pinto & Huizinga, 2018). Pinto and Huizinga (2018) also found that faculty members with prior experience in grant writing indicated they were more likely to continue writing grants on a regular basis. In addition, they found that the institutional pressure to acquire grants impacts their motivation to write grants or in many cases not to write grants. Additionally, a recent systematic literature review conducted by Goff-Albritton et al. (2022) identified three factors that appear to explain barriers and facilitators of faculty grant activity. The three factors were organizational culture, educational resources, and technical assistance. This finding is highly insightful for research offices seeking to improve their processes and services.
One area that is often lost in research is faculty perception. Perception refers to interpretation and understanding of a particular topic or idea. For this research, faculty perceptions of the grant writing process are considered as well as their perception of the purpose of research funding. Although much of the research focuses on what prevents faculty from pursuing grant funding, little research is on their perception of the purpose of grant writing altogether.
Methods
The main aims of this research study were to first examine whether there is a difference between pre-tenured and tenured faculty perceptions of grant writing. Secondly, a comparison of differences of perception between STEM faculty and non-STEM faculty was made. The quantitative method focused on data collection to compare the two sets of groups (i.e. tenure track/tenure and STEM/non-STEM). The emails of faculty members were requested by the University to reach all faculty on campus., Faculty who are of Assistant Professor status and above were included in the email list. Data was collected using Qualtrics and the SPSS software was used for data analysis. For additional analysis, one open-ended qualitative question was included in the survey. The survey was sent via email to faculty members at one institution who were listed as either tenured or tenure track. The survey was anonymous.
Participants
The survey was sent to tenure and tenure-track faculty only. Tenure-track faculty refers to faculty who are not yet tenured but could become tenured in their position subject to meeting the institution’s relevant requirements for tenure.
Research Questions
Quantitative questions:
- What are the differences in perceptions of grant writing between pre-tenured faculty and tenured faculty?
- What are the differences in perceptions of grant writing between non-STEM faculty and STEM faculty?
Qualitative question:
3. What is the purpose of grant funding?
Instruments
The online survey included (a) demographic questions to collect background information on faculty members and (b) the Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Proposal Development Instrument. This instrument utilized a 5-point Likert scale with options ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The internal consistency of this instrument ranges by factor from 0.46 to 0.85 (Cook & Loadman, 1984). For this research study, six truths and two myths were selected from the Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Proposal Development Instrument to be analyzed. Additional analyses were conducted on individual questions from the survey.
The six truths used from the instrument are as follows:
- The proposal writer should be aware of his/her funding source.
- Being able to write in a clear, precise manner is essential.
- The reputation of the agency you represent influences the chances of obtaining a grant.
- A proposal should be written so that someone unfamiliar with the area can understand what you are going to do.
- Resumes of staff members and others working on the project should be included in the proposal.
- Accurate recordkeeping is essential in order to prepare a realistic budget regarding indirect costs, salaries, supplies, etc.
The two myths used from the instrument are as follows:
- Grantsmanship appears to be intentionally difficult to limit those attempting to acquire funding.
- If a small agency receives a grant, it will be a long time before they receive another one.
Results and Discussion
The survey was sent to approximately 1,000 faculty and yielded 104 total responses. Of the respondents, 40% were assistant professors (n=42), 35% were associate professors (n=36), and 25% reported that they were full professors (n=26). In addition, 43% (n=45) of the participants were in the STEM field and 47% (n=49) were in non-STEM related fields, 10% declined to answer. For grant experience, 85% (n=88) of the respondents reported that they have served as a Principal Investigator on a grant. Of the 104 respondents, 48% (n=50) identified as male, 46% (n=48) identified as female, 1% (n=1) identified as gender non-conforming, and 5% (n=5) selected other or prefer not to answer. Figure 1 provides details on the participants by college subject to highlight the range of academic disciplines included in the research study.
Figure 1
Participants by College Type
Quantitative Results
Of the six truths listed above, two yielded statistically different results. As indicated in Table 1 for truth number four (a proposal should be written so that someone unfamiliar with the area can understand what you are going to do), STEM faculty reported higher agreeance with this statement compared to non-STEM faculty, t(4.55)=2.29, p=0.00. Additionally, as shown in Table 2, for truth number six (accurate record keeping is essential in order to prepare a realistic budget regarding indirect costs, salaries, supplies, etc.), STEM faculty reported higher agreeance with this statement compared to non-STEM faculty t(2.47)=2.14, p=0.02. There were no statistically significant results in the difference between tenure-track and tenured faculty responses.
Table 1
Perception of Truths by Tenure Status
Table 2
Perception of Truths by STEM Status
Table 3
Perception of Myths
Additional analyses were conducted using the question, did you write a grant or assist in writing a grant while in graduate school? Of the 104 respondents, 46% stated “yes”. Following this result, an additional research question was addressed, which is as follows: What are the differences in perceptions of grant writing between those who had experience writing grants during graduate school and those who did not? The findings show that there was no significant difference between the two groups.
Qualitative Results
Several themes emerged from the data. The three main themes are discussed below. Along with identifying the themes, information regarding STEM/non-STEM and tenured/pre-tenured regarding the themes is incorporated in the results.
Theme 1: To support/sustain one’s program of research (n=55)
The first theme identified among the responses received to the open-ended question resulted in faculty stating that the purpose of grant funding is to support their research. There were no differences by tenure status nor STEM status in the responses of the respective groups. For example, one participant stated: “To help further a program of research.”
Funded research grants are shown to increase career advancement. Indeed, Bloch et al. (2014) found that those with funded research were more likely to reach full professor status compared to those who did not possess funded grants. Although these findings are about career advancement, the funded research itself was a factor in advancement. Therefore, the results from the present study indicate the purpose of funding is not only to sustain one’s research but it could also sustain one’s career and contribute to advancement.
Other participants stated the following:
“To support research projects with intellectual merit and broader impacts.” “
To allow investigators to have financial support for their research. In particular, it can allow for the purchase of equipment, training, and other necessary items to engage in research. For me, it is most often used to fund participant incentives.”
Both above comments indicate support for research as the main purpose for research funding. The financial support of research through grants can assist in funding faculty research when the institution cannot. As stated in previous research, many faculty seek funding from grants due to limited funding being available at their institution (Bloch et al., 2014). According to the participant above, grant funds are often used to provide incentives for participants in their research. This is a cost not readily funded by the institution therefore, through grants, their research is sustained.
Theme 2: To provide mentoring to graduate and undergraduate students, to support graduate student salaries and cover tuition, and to grow/sustain graduate program enrollment (n=28)
The second theme identified was primarily focused on research training and support of students. The findings show that tenured faculty were more likely to respond about this topic compared to non-tenure-track faculty. One participant stated:
“I think it is vital to have grant funding to support graduate students. It is the most important piece in the puzzle to grow a graduate program.”
These results are also found in other research, thus supporting the notion that faculty seek grant funding to further the education of students—as mentioned by Sehlaoui et al. (2021), where similar results show that hiring student employees is a motivating factor in grant research. With the results from Sehlaoui et al., 2021 and the research study described herein, it can be inferred that faculty members perceive involving students in research as an important motivating aspect of obtaining grant funding.
Theme 3: To advance science, engage in field-altering research, discovery/to discover the truth, and generate/construct new knowledge (n=19)
The third theme focused on moving science forward as the primary purpose of grant funding. STEM faculty are more likely to respond to the open-ended question in this manner compared to their counterparts. For example, one participant stated:
“To garner institutional support and resources for rigorous, high-quality, impactful, field-altering research.”
Another participant went into further detail, stating:
“The main purpose is sustainability of one's expert line of research in hopes of continuing to advance science, the disciplinary field, translation for public use, and ultimately discovering the truth.”
It is also important to note that many faculty participants showed multiple themes in their responses highlighting the varied perceptions faculty have toward grant writing. For example, one participant stated, “To support graduate students, conduct research, develop knowledge, deepen knowledge, provide support to your department, offset costs of dissemination.” This statement covers all three of the above-mentioned themes, thereby showing the purpose of funding is not viewed as being one-sided. Another similar statement was submitted: “Create new knowledge, work in emerging and cross-cutting research areas, train graduate students, provide research opportunities to undergraduate students, and be able to be recognized in the field…”. Both statements by faculty indicate the purpose of grant funding is to support research and graduate students and broaden the knowledge of a research topic.
Conclusions and Future Work
The quantitative analysis did not yield many statistically significant results, which indicates there is little difference of the perceptions of grants between the respective groups. The qualitative findings from this research yielded interesting results specifically addressing faculty perception of grant writing. The findings support other research conducted on similar topics such as mentoring graduate students as a supportive factor of the reason faculty write grants (Sehlaoui et al., 2021). As discussed previously, three themes emerged within the qualitative results identifying the various faculty perspectives on the purpose of grant writing: support one’s research, provide mentoring, and advance science.
Limitations
The present study has limitations. With the dissemination of qualitative data, there are limitations as it is subject to the researcher’s interpretation of the information provided. Additionally, the participants were all from one institution of higher education in the midwestern region of the United States. This limits differing perspectives of other regions across the country and does not include perspectives outside of the United States. For future research in this subject area, it is suggested to gain various perspectives from multiple areas to gain broad insight into the topic.
Future Work
The information gained from these results can be considered when developing training programs on grant writing. Since the results did not indicate many differences, it can be inferred that when discussing grants with faculty, this difference in status or field does not necessarily need to be considered. As grant departments move forward with how they approach faculty regarding the grant process (including STEM and non-STEM as well as tenure and tenure-track faculty members), the results gained from this research can be taken into consideration.
Author’s Note:
This research article is a product of the Journal of Research Administration (JRA) Author Fellowship Program with the Society of Research Administrators International. I would like to thank my JRA Author Mentor, Simon Philbin, for his contributions to this article. I’m thankful for his guidance and for the opportunity to be an Author Fellow. I would also like to thank Christine Johnson for providing guidance for the research.
Julie Swaringim-Griffin, PhD
Assistant Vice President for Central Sponsored Programs Administration
Oklahoma State University
Christine Johnson, PhD
Associate Vice President for Research
Oklahoma State University
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Julie Swaringim-Griffin, Assistant Vice President for Central Sponsored Programs Administration, Oklahoma State University, 206C Whitehurst Hall, Stillwater, OK, USA, 74078, julie.swaringim@okstate.edu
References
Bloch, C., Graversen, E. K., & Pedersen, H. S. (2014). Competitive research grants and their impact on career performance. Minerva, 52(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-014-9247-0
Byrne, Z. S., & Cave, K. A. (2020). STEM vs. non-STEM cultures in a R1 University. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.33423/jop.v20i1.2758
Cook, L., & Loadman, W. (1984). Developing instrumentation to assess perceptions and attitudes toward proposal development. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44(2), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164484442011
Cunningham, K. (2020). Beyond boundaries: Developing grant writing skills across Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Research Administration, 51(2), 41–57. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1293015
Delaney, M. E., & Gibson, S. (2019). Why grant writing and research matters in counselor education: Advancing our discipline. Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 12(4). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/jcps/vol12/iss4/12
Goff-Albritton, R. A., Cola, P. A., Walker, J., Pierre, J., Yerra, S., & Garcia, I. (2022). Faculty views on the barriers and facilitators to grant activities in the USA: A systematic literature review. Journal of Research Administration, 53(2). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1362093
Lauer, M. (2023, March 1). FY2022 by the numbers: Extramural grant investments in research. NIH. https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2023/03/01/fy-2022-by-the-numbers-extramural-grant-investments-in-research/
Monahan, K., Shaklee, T., & Zornes, D. (2023). History of research administration/management in North America. In S. Kerridge, S. Poli, & M. Yang-Yoshihara (Eds.), The Emerald handbook of research management and administration around the world (pp. 27–36). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80382-701-820231004
National Science Foundation. Funding and support descriptions. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/homepagefundingandsupport.jsp
Nir, A. E., & Zilberstein‐Levy, R. (2006). Planning for academic excellence: Tenure and professional considerations. Studies in Higher Education, 31(5), 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600922725
Pinto, H., & Huizinga, D. (2018). Institutional barriers and faculty persistence: Understanding faculty grant-seeking at a predominantly undergraduate institution. The Journal of Faculty Development, 32(1), 65–72. Retrieved from https://katypinto.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/JFD321_Pinto-final-print.pdf
Poli, S., Kerridge, S., Ajai-Ajagbe, P., & Zornes, D. (2023). Research management as labyrinthine–How and why people become and remain research managers and administrators around the world. In S. Kerridge, S. Poli, & M. Yang-Yoshihara (Eds.), The Emerald handbook of research management and administration around the world (pp. 141–154). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80382-701-820231013
Porter, R. (2007). Why academics have a hard time writing good grant proposals. Journal of Research Administration, 38(2), 37–43. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ902223.pdf
Premeaux, S. R. (2011). Tenure perspectives: Tenured versus nontenured tenure-track faculty. Journal of Education for Business, 87(2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.577111
Russell, S. W., & Morrison, D. C. (2010). The grant application writer's workbook. Grant Writers' Seminars and Workshops, LLC.
Sehlaoui, A. S., Gross, E., & Ruengwatthakee, P. (2021). Motivating factors and obstacles behind grant research: The care of a teaching focused state college. Journal of Research Administration, 52(1), 38–58. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1293036
Surratt, C. K., Kamal, K. M., & Wildfong, P. L. (2011). Research funding expectations as a function of faculty teaching/administrative workload. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 7(2), 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2010.04.006
Walden, B., & Bryan, V. (2010). Tenured and non-tenured college of education faculty motivators and barriers in grant writing: A public university in the South. Journal of Research Administration, 41(3), 85–98. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ945950