Login Search
Printed from: http://www.napcrg.org/Programs/GrantGeneratingProject(GGP)/ProjectDescriptionandFellows’Responsibilities

Grant Generating Project (GGP)

Project Description and Fellows’ Responsibilities

PART 1 (AUGUST 14 – NOVEMBER 17, 2017):

All information that should be provided before the NAPCRG meeting will be done using online delivery with the course offerings available through a learning platform that will contain:

  • Video tutorial for how to use all the different tools in the online platform and creation of online icebreaker activity
  • Video tutorial for GGP Faculty (GGP alumnae and NAPCRG Board Members) as well as Course Instructors, the US Course Advisor and trainee-selected mentors on how to use the online platform including creating discussion groups etc 
  • Recommended reading materials that will include different funder guidelines and some explicit material on how the different funding agencies work (i.e. US vs Canadian context/terminology)
  • Timeline with online assignments
  • Discussion groups for each online module (see Table)
  • “Ask the Expert” schedule for when synchronous interactions will take place
  • Eight substantive modules that incorporate the material necessary for the trainees to have a draft protocol (minus CV, budget and timeline) and concept paper ready for the NAPCRG meeting. Details provided in the table below.

Date Available




Aug 14

Justification & Review of Literature

Concept vs problems, identifying gaps, keys to literature reviews

Topic Editorial
Sep 1

Sep 4

Effective Writing Strategies

How to conceptualize a research summary, overcoming writers block, critical thinking, organization, avoiding jargon, writing a lay summary

Outline of concept paper Sep 15

Sep 18

Development of Research Question

Difference between question, objectives, link with hypothesis, defense/explanation of research paradigms, theoretical framework

Identification of theoretical Framework – first draft of literature review and concept paper
Sept 29

Oct 2

Writing the Methods Section

Identifying methods that answers research question, use of theoretical models, different sections, justifications, blank results tables,

Draft of methods section
Oct 20

Oct 23

Limitations and Strengths

How not to create a laundry list, understanding spin, addressing funders concerns and funding priorities

Expansion of methods section
Oct 27

Oct 30


Understanding what your study will and won’t contribute, having a plan b for negative results etc

Expansion of methods section
Nov 3

Oct 30

Knowledge Translation / Dissemination

How to develop and write a knowledge translation plan including deliberative engagement methods and understanding patient-oriented research

KT Plan & completion of first draft of protocol (background, objectives, methods)
Nov 10

Oct 2

Working with Partners

Engagement, partnership building

Stakeholders Engagement Plan
Oct 20


This will be done in-person at NAPCRG and assumes a full day session that will occur as pre-conference course. The in-person meeting will involve the course director, advisor, faculty and instructors. The trainees need to provide a draft of their grant (without budget, timeline or CV) two weeks prior to the beginning of the NAPCRG meeting using the Learning Management System. The proposed format is to have three activities as follows:

  • Peer-Reflective Consultations:  Trainees introduce themselves and share a particular challenge they have had in developing their protocol.  The group of trainees will choose one person to presents his or her problem in more detail. During the presentation, the other trainees listen and cannot interrupt the presentation or ask questions of the presenter at this time. At the end of the presentation, each trainee has the opportunity to ask one question of the presenter in regards to the problem. Each trainee follows in turn asking questions in a round-robin format. If a trainee does not have a question to ask at this time, they can pass on to the next person. The presenter answerS questions briefly. A second round-robin turn of questioning can be conducted if the process and time permit. The presenter then takes a "reflecting position". The presenter can be given paper and pencil to take notes but they are not to participate in the reflecting discussion conducted by the group of trainees. The trainees, or consultants, now discuss the challenge as they understand it while the presenter listens. This gives an opportunity for the presenter to reflect on the interaction without the pressure of having to respond to ideas at that time. The task for the consultants is to generate ideas, solutions, opinions, options, etc within a 20 minute time frame. The task for the presenter is to listen to the reflecting conversation and note ideas that might be worth trying. At the end of the reflection, the presenter is asked to reflect back to the team her experience of listening to their conversation and to identify three things that stood out for her/him. This exercise will be repeated up to three times and the Course Director will be the facilitator
  • Peer-Review Activity:  Each trainee will be assigned a partner who is another trainee.  They will each receive the draft grant protocol of their assigned partner (in advance).  In this exercise, they are expected to draft the blank tables of the results from the description of the question and methods provided in the grant they were assigned.  They will spend 30 minutes each (for a total of 60 minutes) asking their partner for any information that they felt was missing or unclear for producing the blank tables.  The person who is the author of the protocol is not allowed to “present” their grant but only to respond to questions from their partner.  This is extremely effective at demonstrating logic gaps and is a learning experience for both the “reviewer” and “reviewee”. 
  • Dragon’s Den:  In the last part of the day, each of the trainees will “pitch” their grant application idea in a Dragon’s Den.  The trainee will present a 6-minute “pitch” which will be a presentation, followed by questions from the “Dragons” that last until the trainee declares that they are “out” (maximum of 20-30 minutes). The “Dragons” will then determine who would have been funded or allowed past the LOI stage.  The “Dragons” will be giving grids to help them judge the pitches. The “Dragons” will be GGP alumnae, NAPCRG ex-board members, and course instructors. Unlike the famous TV Dragons, they are a source of constructive feedback, not insults.  This will last 2-3 hours depending on the number of trainee.  Each trainee will be recorded and the other trainees will evaluate up to 5 recordings using an assigned grid.  The evaluations will be sent to the person who was recorded.

The day will wrap up with an open Q & A session for the participants to the Faculty, Instructors and Course Director and to provide feedback on the course to-date (complete evaluation forms). At this point, the trainees should have received very constructive feedback on what needs to be improved in their protocol and finalize their concept paper which will be uploaded to the Learning Platform 30 days after the NAPCRG meeting.

PART 3 (DECEMBER 1, 2017- APRIL 1, 2018):

All information that should be provided 30 days before the STFM meeting will be done using online delivery with the course offerings available through a learning platform that will include

  • Discussion groups for each online module
  • Ask the expert schedule for when synchronous interactions will take place





Dec 1, 2017

Building a Timeline

How to develop a timeline and calculate resources, calculating time needed


Feb 1, 2018


Building a budget with submodules for Canada and the US


Mar 1, 2018


Biosketch and CV’s


PART 4 (MAY 2018 - date TBD - WASHINGTON D.C.):

This will be an in-person meeting at the STFM Annual Spring Conference (May 5-9, 2018) that will again utilize the course instructors and GGP Alumnae to provide expertise for two activities.  The trainees will be expected to submit their complete grant protocol 4 weeks before the STFM meeting which they will attend in-person.  The activities will be as follows:

  • Peer review panel.  Each trainee will have two reviewers assigned to their grant who will score the grant and provide reviews to be discussed at the meeting (we will try to organize our numbers so that each reviewer has a maximum of three grants to review).  I will chair this meeting with the one of the course instructors acting as a scientific officer and one acting as a community member (or we can ask the PACE reps to do this). The trainees will observe the full committee meeting to better understand how grants get reviewed and how they can improve their applications. This will be the morning activity.
  • In the afternoon, the trainees will be assigned in groups of 2-3 (depending on numbers) to the one of their “reviewers” to get personal feedback on their protocols.  The group dynamic works better as they can learn from things that may not have been highlighted in their own proposal.  The feedback from the reviewers and the scientific officer will be provided to each trainee.
  • Wrap up of the day with an open Q&A about budget items, CV’s etc with feedback on course (evaluation).

The final protocol will be submitted online by July 1.  Trainees will be celebrated with a graduation ceremony at the next NAPCRG meeting at the GGP Alumnae event.