The Pursuit of Grant Funds

Even if instructional designers do not directly pursue grant funding, it seems like a wise thing to learn about funding streams into a university, how the money is spent, accounted for, and results in usable research…and really how to align productively with that process (by documenting work, and by making sure work meets legal requirements, for example). Years ago, when I was first starting out as a faculty member at a college, I remember an administrator telling me that not all money was worth pursuing. In some cases, such funds are not worth pursuing—because it was too much work for that amount of money. I didn't fully understand then. That said, I do understand now that some moneys can have too many strings attached or take one too far off course of research or would require too much trading away of something of fundamental value to pursue.

An Environmental Scan

On campus, one of our colleagues puts together a listing of large grant possibilities, which is routed in an electronic mailing list to those who subscribe. It is eye-opening to see what actual pools of moneys are out there. If I've learned nothing else, it is that there are macro-level ambitions in terms of funding. There are also certain universities and colleges better aligned to take advantage of certain funds. Further, I have learned that there are severe limits in terms of what is out there. No wonder universities have to coordinate among themselves internally and each other externally before going after the large multi-year grants.

It's important to be at the table when such grant application decisions get made. (It's cooler being on the side of the grant-funding decision-makers, which help one to have complex strategic perspectives.) It's clear to me that large grants are not ever given to unknowns—for obvious reasons—but are given in contexts of long-term professional relationships and productivity that build the confidence for a government agency to grant a multi-million many-year project. No one wants to make a bad investment with no returns (in the same way that no one wants to put in a team member who is all talk but no work).

Low-Hanging Fruit

Researchers do well then to pursue smaller grants and smaller projects early on in order to build a sense of a professional track record. This is then done also at the levels of departments and colleges. And ultimately, this is a focus for universities and university consortiums. This is not only to build a track record that is semi-public, but it's to build the skills and social connections and the work portfolios that enables more complex work later on. In other words, such projects build in-house capacities for further development and tougher work projects. Ideally, there would be more of these funds, and there would be more opportunities by invitation only—but those actually only come once one has a track record.

(Justifying) Taking a Cut

Instructional designers need to be able to add value to grant funding pursuits. They need to justify being at the decision-making table by enhancing the work of every member at the table. Their contributions have to be measurable.

Further, instructional designers need to be able to build long-term relationships based on trust and professionalism with all players. Indeed, instructional designers play a service role, but they also can "lead from behind" every now and again—with beneficial insights and supports. They need to not insist on credit at every turn because that is generally harmful to projects. They know when they need to step out in public and when they need to stay in the shadows.