Table 1.
Structure of the eight-week Proposal Bootcamp.
Grant coaches delivered short (<15 minute) mini lectures. During the remainder of the two-hour weekly meeting, Bootcamp participants used a structured format to peer review drafts. Before week 1, Bootcamp participants attended an in-person seminar or watched an online video about how to write the one-page Specific Aims document. Faculty review workshops took place during weeks 3–4 and weeks 5–6.
Fig 1.
During the weekly meetings, documents were peer reviewed using a structured format.
Peers participated in each peer-review role (Writer or Reader) each week, thus receiving prioritized feedback from peer reviewers. This structured format ensured fast, organized, and effective feedback.
Fig 2.
Specific aims rubric worksheet was designed to enable peers to provide prioritized feedback to the Writer.
(A) Each worksheet provided strategic advice. (B) First, Readers used the back of the worksheet to rate statements that described specific aspects of the document. (C) Then, Readers prioritized their feedback.
Table 2.
Post-Bootcamp survey questions.
The above questions were asked to participants at the end of the Proposal Bootcamp. We indicated when specific questions were asked (“Years”). In some years, specific items were added; we indicated those items with * or ** in Figs 4 and 5.
Table 3.
Participants in the annual Proposal Bootcamp.
Numbers of participants are indicated for each annual Bootcamp. The total* reflects unique participants. Seventeen Bootcamp participants participated in two Bootcamps, and two Bootcamp participants participated in three Bootcamps.
Table 4.
Proposal Bootcamp participants had higher success in funded proposals.
Proposal outcomes for the 2014 to 2018 Bootcamp participants compared with non-Bootcamp trainees. Bootcamp participants were more likely to ultimately submit proposals (submission rate). Bootcamp participants that submitted proposals submitted similar numbers of proposals as non-Bootcamp trainees (proposals per applicant). Bootcamp participants that submitted proposals had more funded proposals (proposal success rate) and were more likely to receive at least one award (applicant success rate). T-tests were upper-tailed comparison of means, assuming equal variances.
Fig 3.
Proposal Bootcamp participants were satisfied and reported improved quality of proposals.
(A) Ninety-six percent of Bootcamp participants were “Very Satisfied” or “Satisfied” with the Proposal Bootcamp. The response rate was 72%. 1Not Satisfied responses included “Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied” (3 responses), “Somewhat Dissatisfied” (4 responses), “Dissatisfied” (6 responses), and “Very Dissatisfied” (1 response). (B) Ninety-six percent of Bootcamp participants reported the Bootcamp improved the quality of their proposal “A Great Deal” or “A Moderate Amount.” Seventy-six percent of Bootcamp participants reported that the Bootcamp improved the quality of their research projects or questions “A Great Deal” or “A Moderate Amount.” The response rate was 74%.
Table 5.
Grantsmanship self-efficacy improved after the Proposal Bootcamp.
The 2019 Bootcamp participants were asked to rate their degree of confidence before and after the Bootcamp in terms of 23 items across four grantsmanship domains using a 0–10 scale, 0 = no confidence, 10 = complete confidence in the ability to perform the task.
Fig 4.
Proposal Bootcamp participants reported that they achieved learning goals.
More than 93% of Bootcamp participants reported that they achieved the Bootcamp’s learning goals at least “A Little.” The response rate was 76%. *The response rate was 73%.
Fig 5.
Bootcamp participants gained confidence.
Ninety-one percent of Bootcamp participants reported increased confidence in grant writing abilities. The response rate was 73%. *The response rate was 75%. **The response rate was 76%.
Fig 6.
The majority of Bootcamp participants valued being in a community.
(A) Ninety-five percent of Bootcamp participants reported that being in the Bootcamp community was helpful. The response rate was 76%. 1Disagreed responses included “Neither Agree nor Disagree” (9 responses), “Disagree” (9 responses), and “Strongly Disagree” (1 response). (B) Bootcamp participant write-in survey responses for the question “What about this course was especially useful?” highlighted the importance of the Bootcamp community.
Fig 7.
Proposal Bootcamp participants reported peer and faculty feedback improved proposals.
(A) Bootcamp participants brought drafts of proposal documents to weekly meetings. Peers gave and received feedback through a structured format. Ninety-six percent of Bootcamp participants reported that this process strengthened their documents and improved their writing. The response rate was 76%. 1Disagree responses included “Neither Agree nor Disagree” (5 responses), “Disagree” (5 responses), and “Strongly Disagree” (2 responses). 2Disagree responses included “Neither Agree nor Disagree” (5 responses), “Disagree” (6 responses), and “Strongly Disagree” (2 responses). (B) As a result of the faculty review workshops, 97% of Bootcamp participants reported improved one-page Specific Aims document “A Great Deal” or “A Moderate Amount”. The response rate was 72%. *The response rate was 67%.
Fig 8.
Faculty review workshops were valued by Bootcamp participants and faculty reviewers.
(A) Ninety-seven percent of Bootcamp participants reported faculty review workshops were an important component of the Bootcamp. The response rate was 67%. 1Did Not Agree responses included “Neither Agree nor Disagree” (7 responses) and “Disagree” (4 response). (B) Ninety-eight percent of faculty reviewers rated the faculty review workshop as “Excellent” or “Good” overall. The response rate was 56%.