Once investigators achieve their first major grant(s), they naturally tend to scale their programs (more resources, more personnel, more projects). With this shift, they typically have a lot more data and new questions/directions than in those early years of independence when they may have felt that they didn’t have enough (data, papers) or weren’t sure they were proposing enough (aims/sub-aims). However, among common challenges with scaling, one thing we encounter is that having multiple potential research directions available makes it hard for investigators to figure out how to pull together a set of objectives for the next grant application.

It’s kind of like going to a restaurant that has so many menu options that it is difficult to decide.

This can result in (1) a lot of time spent in indecision or lack of clarity, delaying or complicating the proposal writing and creating frustration, and/or (2) a proposal that tries to do too many things and therefore falls flat because it lacks a compelling logical framework or doesn’t appear feasible.

When investigators ask us how to figure out which way to go for their next proposal, we commonly ask some questions that can help guide the process. Here, we share how you can coach yourself to narrow down that veritable menu of research directions so that you can start to build the foundation of that next application: the specific aims or objectives.

1. Define Your Desired Outcome

To be intentional about anything often requires knowing your goal or purpose so that you can take the right actions. With respect to a project proposal, beginning with the end is similarly effective in helping you identify the best steps to get there. Ask yourself:

• What is a key knowledge product or tangible outcome I’d like to achieve?

Try to take a few steps back in your view of the research problem so that you don’t get too far into the nuance. Often there are many possible questions and the answers could be cool or interesting but also the end of the line. Unfortunately, it’s hard to win funding if the end goal is to get a cool answer to a discrete question; typically there has to be a longer-term impact (e.g., opening other new lines of inquiry).

• To determine if your outcome is the end of the line, try adding “so that _____” and fill in the blank.

If you can’t fill in the blank in a way that makes clear that future work or applications will follow, you might be thinking too narrowly.

Repeat this step as needed if you’ve opened the brainstorming pipeline and have a lot of possibilities coming to mind.

2. Now, Work Backwards

Take stock of where you are right now, as relates to a desired end outcome. The gap between where you are now and where you want to go holds the steps toward achieving the outcome. There could be many possible steps, but it’s still a finite set. So, “brain dump” into bullet points whatever research questions, hypotheses, experiments, or analyses come to mind when you think of these possibilities. Then, for each of these bullets, ask:

• Does/how does this step contribute to the desired end result–i.e., what is the outcome of doing this specific step and how does it relate to the overall end result?
• Does this step provide a necessary piece of evidence or insight to complete the larger puzzle?
• Is this step dependent on another step’s success and/or specific outcome?

Don’t worry at this point about turning the steps into something that sounds like a mature specific aims or objectives. This is the brainstorm stage; refinement comes later. For now, you want to identify all possibilities to later create a focal theme.

What do you do if you’ve listed a bunch of open questions or experiments before you’ve done Step 1 (Desired Outcomes)? Hide the list, then complete Step 1. Once you’ve completed Step 1, pull out the list of questions/experiments/analyses and compare. See if you can group any items from Step 2 with the ideas in Step 1.

3. Narrow the List Thoughtfully

Evaluating each idea will allow you to start eliminating some (excluding them for right now, but saving those ideas somewhere for future reference).

For your first evaluation step, make a table with 6 columns: idea; exciting; fills known gap/need; logical; leap; fits niche; new direction. Next, list your ideas in the rows. Then assess and tick the columns as appropriate:

• Which ideas excite you? Your excitement is a great thing because it tends to make for a more engaging grant proposal (how easy is it to write convincingly about something you think is terrible or don’t want to do?)
• Which ones fill gaps or needs acknowledged by the field?
• Which ideas falls in the “next logical step” category, and which ones in the “bit of a leap” category?
• Which ones most closely align with your vision for your research program or niche?
• Which ones represent new directions that push outside your niche?

Now assess your tick marks. There is a saying that what is interesting isn’t necessarily fundable, and what is fundable isn’t necessarily interesting. This may have some truth in it, but certainly, it’s nice to aim for the sweet spot with ideas that are fundable and that you won’t hate doing when you get the grant.

An idea that is exciting, fills a known gap/need, represents a next logical step, and fits your niche would probably be worth considering in Step 4 as a possibility for a next large grant like an R01 or other investigator-initiated program. An idea that is exciting, fills a known gap/need and is a bit of a leap might be a smaller pilot or high-risk/high-reward or other type of innovative grant. Something that gets one tick might be better to keep in the “saved ideas” folder for now.

Some questions here are to help you have awareness about the potential for scope creep–moving further and further from your niche. Yet, sometimes your work could benefit from new directions (e.g., maybe you’ve never included humans in your research but you believe this will be an important step for your long-term vision). Making these evaluations can help you identify when the time is right to take an idea forward.

Some of us get excited about all of the ideas. If that’s you, that’s ok; hold on for Step 4. If there are no ideas that excite you, have you checked in with yourself to ensure you’re not heading toward burnout?

4. Evaluate Feasibility in the Context of the Desired Outcome

Hopefully your list is getting a bit shorter by this point; now it’s a great time to consider feasibility. Think critically about whether a step you’ve listed is realistically achievable within the grant period and with your current resources. Remember:

• Time and budget constraints: How well are the steps (or aims, if they’ve started taking shape) aligned with what can reasonably be accomplished within the project period and budget? What options could help you bring those into better alignment?
• Preliminary data: What data do you have or will you need to support your hypotheses and show that you can achieve the final outcome? How likely are you to be able to fill any gaps before submission? If the award type does not require preliminary data, what else might you need to support your framework?
• Expertise and resources: What expertise, tools, and resources do you have or will you need to be able to achieve the outcome? How likely are you to be able to fill any gaps before submission?
• If moving in a new direction, what is in place to support that this is good timing for the shift?

This systematic evaluation may help you prioritize objectives that are in the best state of readiness, while simultaneously providing the roadmap for a proposal that conveys your ability to deliver meaningful results.

5. Talk It Out

Once you’ve gone through Steps 1-4, you might find other perspectives to be valuable. Sharing your ideas and any roadblocks with a thought partner or two can help you make a decision and gain clarity and confidence to take an idea forward. Gauge your thought partner’s excitement for the idea, and see if they pick up anything you might have missed in your evaluation. Then, stay in your momentum and draw up a plan for turning these ideas into the narrative for a compelling grant application.