NLN Nursing Education Research Grants FAQs

Funding is generally received by July 1 of the year the grant is approved for funding. The NLN does not require applicants to use a specific start date.  Most grants submitted start between July 1 and September 30 of the grant year.

Grant proposals can be written for one year or two year terms.  As with anything, research studies can face unanticipated issues and require an extension.  Upon submission of appropriate support  materials, requests for no-cost extensions are approved with a due date for the final report specified

The NLN has decided that equal emphasis will be placed on all priorities located at http://www.nln.org/professional-development-programs/research/research-priorities-in-nursing-education. The final decision on how well a proposal reflects the priorities is made by the review panel after reading the total proposal.

The NLN Educational Research Grants are awarded annually. For each grant cycle, grant application instructions are posted on the NLN web site in early October. Grant proposals are due by mid/late February. Proposal reviews are completed by late April/early May.
Letters of notification are sent and funds distributed to schools/institutions by July 1. (Most awarded projects start by September of the same year). Recipients of the Nursing Education Research Grants are formally announced at the NLN Education Summit in late September/early October.  

Currently we do not have examples of funded grants on the website. We do not have permission from awardees to put this information on the website. However, our website provides a listing of all previously funded grants, as well as a free archived webinar on preparing a successful nursing education research proposal.

Yes, an NLN member organization may submit multiple applications for funding.  There is no current limit.  All proposals are submitted for blind review by carefully selected experts in nursing education research. Grant award recipients are selected through a peer review process using the NLN Proposal Review Rubric (DOCX)

Yes. All members of the NLN who do not have a conflict of interest are eligible to apply for a grant. You are not required to live or work in the United States to apply for a grant.

The PI must be a NLN member, but there is no requirement that other members of the research team be NLN members.

This research would be supported if the research question(s) focus on the students’ preparation for the role of graduate nurse. It would not be supported if the focus is on the development of new staff.

Yes, but you must have your proposal approved by your committee and Institutional Review Board before applying.

No, you would serve as the PI of your research.

A grant proposal may not be submitted for more than one grant option on the NLN grants page during one year. If the proposal is not approved for funding, grant writers may consider seeking an NLN scholarship award. Or they are welcome to submit another proposal during the next grant cycle.

All questions related to grants should be directed to research@nln.org. However, neither the NLN nor the NLN Research Review Panel provide technical assistance for PIs who are preparing grants.

If an electronic file is corrupted and has been submitted on or before the due date, the applicant will be notified and asked to resubmit the file.

If the NLN experiences a technical problem that prevented applicants from submitting applications by the announced due date or if there has been a documented natural disaster in a given region of the country an extension would be granted to all affected applicants.

No extensions will be granted for individual circumstances.

All grant applicants first receive independent reviews using a blind review process. In other words, these reviewers receive no identifying information. Each of the reviewers is qualified in terms of their area of expertise, their experience with nursing research and as a reviewer. A review form listing each criterion along with a Proposal Review Rubric is provided to these reviewers. 

The results of the blind review along with the full proposal with identifying information are then evaluated by the members of the NLN Reasearch Review Panel for final funding decisions. After reviewing all grant applications submitted that year this Committee will make the final funding recommendation.

If available, a copy of the instrument(s) should be included as an Appendix. Otherwise, a detailed description with sample questions may be included.

 

Applicants may send copies of documents on official letterhead with the name of the school visible.  Most signatures can also be visible to demonstrate that the proposal received appropriate approval.  However, any items that in any way link the proposal back to the applicant, including their own signature on the document, should be “blacked out”.  There should be no way to link the proposal back to the individual applicant.

Applicants should not include biosketches, IRB approval letters and letters of support in the Blind Review File.  An applicant may state in the appendix that support letters/IRB approval letters have been obtained, but the actual letters should not be included. These documents should only be included in the Comprehensive Review File. 

The proposal should educate the reviewer to the gap in the literature or current theory. It should convince the reader of the significant impact the current study may bring to nursing science, theory, research, policy, and/or education. One needs to address the overall importance of the potential findings. How will this study add to the body of literature and understanding of a specific problem or phenomena?

· Avoid sweeping generalizations

· Clarity when identifying what will be studied

· Identify overarching question to be answered with key variables

· Discuss the limits or boundaries of the study

There is a greater likelihood of a higher score when your sampling design is strong, especially when it is multi-site. Clearly indicate why you chose study locations. More meaningful evidence can be gathered from more diverse broader sample. Concentrate on developing a rigorous research design with potential impact to improve your review score.

You should include all instruments used in the study as part of the proposal narrative. Copies of the instruments should be included in an appendix and are not included in the proposal page count. This allows the reviewer to evaluate whether the instruments are appropriate measures for the study variables. When instruments are appropriate with evidence of reliability and validity, they support the rigor of the study.  If it is a commercially available product, a detailed description with sample questions may be included instead.

The investigator should describe how fidelity is maintained throughout the course of the study for the reviewer. For example, dose, strength, and frequency of the intervention, training, and quality checks of intervention implementors should be clear. Be sure to include the process(es) for ensuring intervention and data collection consistency across sites.

Convince the reviewer why the dose is sufficient for the desired outcome(s). State why you are using the length of intervention dose and support it with theory or prior research. Cite previous studies wherein a standardized dose was used or cite other studies where you think the intervention dosage was weak. Provide a clear indication of timing of the intervention(s) and related measures, especially repeated interventions. To strengthen the design, be sure to link the intervention and measure(s). Consider conducting long-term follow up to assess strength of the intervention. These approaches help provide a rationale for why you are conducting the proposed intervention and specific dosing.

There have been many studies in nursing wherein the outcome measures were self-reports, specifically on confidence or satisfaction. It is time to advance the science and move past these outcomes. Outcome measures should be relevant to the target of the intervention whether a single person or a specific group. Include actual measures of individual or program performance as outcomes.

Yes, a proposal looking at new graduate nurses’ transition to practice will be considered if there is a well-defined connection to pre-transition nursing education. Be sure to identify that the research grant proposal addresses an issue in nursing education and not nursing practice.

A research grant proposal that is an evaluation of a program will be considered when there is a well-defined demonstration of the impact on nursing education beyond basic programmatic evaluation and single site.

Diversity must be a part of a research grant proposal narrative. The researcher must address common understandings of diversity including race, class, gender, sexual orientation to name a few. The proposal should identify specific experiences reflecting diversity and demonstrate a respect for the value of differing ideas, experiences, and interests. Be sure to include a clear description of the diversity of the intended target population. Discuss potential limitations. Should the target population lack diversity, be sure to include a discussion of the potential limitations of the study outcomes.

The sustainability of the research agenda is best maintained when the researcher can convince the reviewer of how the research agenda will continue when funding ends. The researcher should also consider identifying potential funding resources that could be accessed to continue the effort. When the proposed study is single site or lacks diversity, explain how the researcher will eventually move to a multi-site project with greater diversity among samples. Include a discussion of implications for future research or education post grant to demonstrate the sustainability or potential impact of the research project post completion.

If the proposal is a scoping review, address sustainability by describing next steps once the data are available. Will the investigator create a pilot study or a tool?

The stipend is not to be used as a replacement for any part of the PI’s salary at the institution. It can be processed in your financial system as salary but the researcher must receive the full stipend in addition to their full university salary. In addition, many university financial systems require that fringe benefits be paid on ALL compensation. If that is the case, the fringe benefits incurred as a result of the stipend must be paid from the stipend. On your budget submitted to the NLN, the $2500 should be listed as a stipend and the amount paid as fringe benefits should be noted and subtracted from the stipend.

No, the total stipend in the grant budget can be no more than $2500.

The NLN grant allows a PI to have the option of either requesting the $2500 stipend or requesting instructional release time up to a maximum of $5000 for one semester.  The intent of the instructional release monies is to acknowledge the time that is involved in conducting the research as well as some universities policies on stipends.

Yes, it is permissible.

Yes, a PDA falls under the definition of durable equipment.

While PDA software is not considered durable equipment, it may be included in the event that it is specific to your research and is not general office or research software.

QSR NVivo is software used to analyze qualitative research data and would be considered general research software.

Including budget items in the narrative will help you justify why you are asking for funding in the proposed budget. If properly explained or defined in the narrative, the budget will support and be a strength for the proposal.