Create a safe environment to build confidence

Coaches reflected on how they worked closely with participants to develop their confidence in grant writing by viewing program participants as junior colleagues, aiming to build rapport and confidence and create a supportive and collaborative coaching environment. Confidence building included both the attention to technical and social aspects of grant writing. On the technical side, this included reviewing documents, structuring grant proposals, and offering guidance on various aspects of grant writing. Coaches also focused on demystifying the process by sharing examples and models to follow: “I was able to share examples with them of full proposals that I might not have had otherwise.” The coach also prompted future coaching programs to consider some questions: “[W]ere they able to see other examples? Did they have access to things like that? I think that’s incredibly valuable to have […] other examples of successful applications.”(NRMN_10).

In terms of the social aspect of confidence-building, coaches viewed informal social interaction as a foundational aspect of building trust, accountability, and “dedication for the others” (NRMN_09). Proactive communication helped participants stay on track with their writing goals, but the group format of the program helped normalize the different challenges that participants faced along the way. Coaches recognized that “[t]here’s a lot of burnout even among early-career faculty” (NRMN_06), and nurtured the social support network to promote social connection and self-efficacy among the participants.

Set regular group meetings

Coaches carried out the activity of organizing group work and set meetings every 2-3 weeks for their groups. While the frequency of the meetings was dictated by the NRMN-SET program, the coaches acted as the core facilitators for group interactions. These regular meetings allowed for consistent progress and the ability to “work together as a team” (NRMN_11) to address issues as they arose. Although the NRMN-SETH participants are asked to commit 10 hours or more a week to grant writing, finding a recurring time that works for several people requires some negotiation and adjustment. Coaches described the individualized attention they provided by scheduling bi-weekly meetings and offering continuous support. While most coaching groups had 4-6 participants, some groups were larger due to the group randomization assignment. The larger group size created logistical challenges and required coaches to “interlace weeks [to] be weekly for a certain period of time” (NRMN_09) before switching to less frequent meetings. For most coaching groups, the meetings took about two hours. While this time was focused mostly on technical work, structuring drafts, and getting comments, the coaches also noted that these regular meetings served the social function of building a supportive peer community for the “core group” of participants who attended the sessions regularly. (NRMN_06)

Establish milestones and deliverables

Following the program framework, coaches implemented a structured approach by setting clear milestones and “a list of deliverables” (NRMN_15) for each meeting, ensuring that participants made consistent progress toward their goals. Coaches discussed specific grant sections as development milestones and worked to ensure that participants set and adhered to the agreed-upon schedule. Coaches identified this structured approach as a mechanism for both progress and accountability for program participants. Regular meeting schedules helped to create a consistent rhythm, but coaches also noted the need to develop the means for open accountability and planning. Over time, as coaches became more familiar with their role, they developed tools to define and track the specific tasks the participants needed to complete by certain dates. As one coach put it, “I think I got better in the second cohort at [] helping people understand and actually putting together a timeline” (NRMN_05).

Check in and maintain engagement

In addition to setting up regular meetings, coaches emphasized the importance of holding participants accountable to the agreed-upon schedules through regular follow-ups and reminders. Coaches viewed this accountability mechanism as a crucial element of the coaching process, ensuring that participants adhered to the schedules and completed their assigned tasks. Most coaches took it upon themselves to send reminders as a tool to maintain accountability by establishing clear milestones, regularly following up on participants’ progress, ensuring that participants were prepared and aware of upcoming tasks, and “insist[ing] on sticking to the commitment despite shifting priorities” (NRMN_09). Coaches highlighted the challenge of getting all participants to contribute equally as the level of engagement among participants varied. Some participants were highly proactive, actively seeking feedback and participating in discussions, while others struggled to stay on track with their tasks, “would not show up, [] or say they’re not ready to share things” (NRMN_07). This variability created challenges in maintaining a productive group dynamic and ensuring that all participants benefited equally from the coaching process. Another coach experienced similar challenges, stating, “Some people didn’t show up; it’s hard to follow.” (NRMN_14) This inconsistency in participation affected the overall effectiveness of the coaching process. This lack of consistency was another role for the coaches who realized the need to maintain momentum and group cohesion.

Facilitate peer-to-peer review

Peer-to-peer review is an essential part of the NRMN-SETH grant coaching experience. Many coaches commented on their experience facilitating the peer-to-peer review and collaborative feedback, and coaches also described their efforts to host discussions around grant writing and career development, saying, “I facilitated the group providing feedback” (NRMN_05). Coaches discussed the benefits of real-time peer feedback, noting that it helped participants understand the review process. This approach helped to create a supportive environment where participants could learn from each other’s experiences. However, coaches observed that peer interactions were sometimes limited by the participants’ varying levels of experience and noted that the success of this approach depended on the group’s dynamics, with some groups benefiting significantly from the interactions, while others struggled to engage in meaningful discussions: “I tried to figure it out and encourage them to share and request feedback, but I wasn’t very successful.” (NRMN_13) Finally, coaches noted that they had to intentionally push for discussions during meetings: “I intentionally forced them to have discussions during the meeting.” (NRMN_16) This effort was crucial for ensuring that participants engaged with each other and benefited from the collective knowledge of the group.

Assess individual grant writing readiness

Coaches frequently encountered participants with different levels of experience in grant writing. This created challenges in providing appropriate guidance, as some participants were well-prepared to submit grants, while others were still developing the foundational skills needed to draft a competitive proposal and “were not as advanced in their writing as others ” (NRMN_15). This variability in experience often made it challenging for coaches to deliver guidance that was equally beneficial to all participants. Some coaches suggested that participants should have prior grant submission experience to benefit fully from the program. This would ensure that participants have a foundational understanding of the grant writing process.

One coach described the difficulty in maintaining cohesion within a group with varying experience levels, when “people are not ready” or “they would have a proposal that is 10 years old” (NRMN_09). These issues were sometimes exacerbated by the participants’ inexperience with grant writing or not having a well-articulated research topic, leading to frustration and disengagement. The differing levels of progress in grant writing made it challenging to keep all participants aligned. This created a situation where more experienced participants could move forward while those less familiar with grant writing struggled to keep up. One coach mentioned the struggle of working with mentees who were not ready to submit a grant. This lack of preparedness made it challenging to provide effective coaching. Several coaches suggested that participants should have prior experience in grant submission before entering the program. The need for prior experience emerged as a potential solution to these challenges, with coaches advocating for a more selective entry process that would ensure participants are adequately prepared to benefit from the coaching program. This prerequisite would ensure that participants have a basic understanding of the grant writing process, allowing them to gain more from the coaching provided.

Encourage participation in mock study sections

The mock study sections were viewed as a valuable component of the program, providing participants with critical feedback and a realistic experience of the grant review process. Mock study sections also extended the group experience to a larger ecosystem for the reinforcement of progress and accomplishments. However, not all participants took advantage of the mock study sections, which limited their exposure to constructive criticism and the opportunity to improve their grant proposals. Coaches viewed the mock study sections as a valuable and realistic component of the program, providing participants with a critical experience that mimicked the formal review process of grant proposals. Many coaches perceived these sessions as essential for helping participants understand the rigor and expectations of actual funding reviews, with some describing them as eye-opening opportunities that “some of them [participants] didn’t take advantage of” (NRMN_13).

In preparing participants for the mock study sections, coaches played a pivotal role in encouraging a mindset of readiness and resilience. They frequently guided participants through the grant’s individual sections, helping them anticipate questions and critiques they might receive. Coaches often dedicated additional one-on-one time or small group sessions to refine specific aims, research design, and presentation of the proposal’s significance. They emphasized clarity and coherence, urging participants to present their ideas in ways that would be compelling to reviewers. By providing detailed feedback and encouraging revisions, coaches helped participants polish their proposals and gain confidence in presenting their research ideas. Furthermore, coaches helped participants prepare emotionally, normalizing the rigorous nature of the review process and encouraging them to view critical feedback as a learning tool rather than a setback. Coaches often reminded participants that such feedback was part of the process, reassuring them that constructive critiques would ultimately strengthen their proposals. Through this preparation and encouragement, coaches fostered a supportive environment, enabling participants to approach the mock study sections with a more robust and open perspective, ultimately readying them for real-world grant evaluations.

Emphasize institutional and programmatic support

The success of the NRMN program was heavily influenced by the level of institutional and programmatic support and “buy-in” (NRMN_13) available to both coaches and participants. Coaches frequently highlighted the need for strong institutional buy-in and support to ensure that participants could fully engage with the program. This support was crucial in providing participants with the protected time needed to focus on their grant writing and in integrating the program into the broader institutional framework, thereby enhancing its effectiveness and sustainability. Coaches noted that without robust institutional support, participants are likely to struggle with the demands of the NRMN program. Therefore, institutional buy-in was viewed as critical for the success of programs like NRMN, as it allows participants to engage deeply with the coaching process and take full advantage of the resources and guidance provided.

Coaches emphasized that for the NRMN program to be truly effective, there must be a strong commitment from the participants’ home institutions to “institutional support to actually free up the faculty time required for mentoring” (NRMN_02). This commitment includes providing protected time for participants to focus on grant writing, offering necessary resources, and recognizing the effort of the coaches and the potential contribution of coaching programs for the institution’s overall research infrastructure. To capitalize on the value of grant writing coaching programs, the institutions need to provide the necessary time, resources, and infrastructure to support their faculty and staff in their grant writing endeavors. This support not only helps participants focus on developing high-quality grant proposals but also ensures that the program’s benefits are fully realized within the broader context of the institution’s goals.

Provide accessibility for urgent assistance

Coaches across the program described a strong commitment to accessibility and responsiveness, emphasizing that being available for participants was integral to an effective coaching process. They often extended their support beyond scheduled group sessions, creating multiple communication channels to ensure participants felt supported. Many coaches shared their personal contact information and explicitly invited participants to reach out with urgent questions or concerns as “some of [the] mentees, they sent emails 3 times, sometimes 4 times a wee.” (NRMN_14). Several coaches emphasized the importance of communicating with participants outside of scheduled meetings. This ongoing support, provided through various channels such as email, Slack, or phone calls, was crucial for addressing urgent questions, offering continuous guidance, and ensuring participants remained on track with their grant writing and career development. This type of support also helped to reinforce the formal coaching sessions and allowed coaches to be responsive to the participants’ evolving needs.

Coaches tailored their availability based on participants’ needs as they recognized that quick, on-demand support was essential to maintaining momentum in grant writing, where even minor setbacks or uncertainties could stall progress. Some coaches described the importance of offering flexibility with meeting times, allowing one-on-one sessions when participants required additional guidance. By making themselves accessible in these ways, coaches fostered an environment where participants felt their questions were valued, helping to build participants’ confidence in the grant-writing process. This accessibility allowed participants to seek guidance when they faced immediate challenges, reducing delays in their progress and creating a sense of continuous support. Another coach noted how they adapted their support to the participants’ schedules and needs: “I stayed in touch with participants who needed additional help” (NRMN_05), indicating a flexible approach to coaching that extended beyond the confines of regular meetings.

Consider support beyond the coaching program

Several coaches continued to support participants even after the formal coaching sessions had ended. This ongoing relationship helped participants navigate challenges that arose after the program, providing them with a safety net as they advanced in their careers. Coaches described their efforts to stay in touch with participants beyond the structured program for continued coaching and support, particularly as participants worked on subsequent grant submissions or other career milestones. For example, one coach (NRMN_14) was asked for a letter of support for a separate proposal. Ongoing support beyond formal meetings played a vital role in the coaching process. Coaches who made themselves available outside of scheduled sessions provided participants with reliable guidance and reassurance, helping them overcome obstacles and achieve their goals. This continuous support was not only about being accessible but also about actively engaging with participants to ensure their success in grant writing and career development.