I try to be honest with the writer but in constructive ways. Faculty have
come to appreciate this honesty--they tell me that most of their colleagues
will reivew for them but don't give much constructive criticism so they come
to see me for some reality. Our faculty don't appreciate insincere praise
only to have the proposal blasted in the peer review process. Given enough
lead time, I try to read each proposal very carefully. Many times I catch
typos and small grammatical errors, but I also give both solicited and
unsolicited "suggestions" on how to strengthen sections, time permitting.
If for no other reason than to get reviewer feedback, I usually encourage
submission if the proposal isn't clearly absolutely unfundable. I will talk
with the PI about the competition and the likelihood of funding, the help
that the reviewers comments can be, and the probability that the proposal
will have to be revised and resubmitted. Once in a while, I come across a
proposal that is clearly doomed and, excuse me, but almost an embarrassment
to have go out under the College name. These are usually a first try from
an inexperienced researcher and generally reflect a lack of background work
and a lack of understanding of the proposal contents. However, sometimes
the flaws are even more serious--like a lack of understanding of sensitivity
of issues, etc. In these cases, I really encourage spending a more
development time and holding off for the next deadline. If the PI agrees, I
try to stay in touch to encourage continued development of the grant idea.
Bad proposals can eventually be turned into good ones with a some one-on-one
work with the PI--and perhaps a little help from mentors in the PI's
department. I think our job is to be truthful but kind and then to
follow-up with support and assistance. To do less would not be professional.
Barbara H. Gray Telephone: 803-953-5673
Director of Sponsored Programs FAX: 803-953-6577
University of Charleston, SC e-mail: xxxxxx@cofc.edu
Charleston, South Carolina 29424