A randomized trial of grant writing coaching groups: Qualitative interviews revealing key elements of intervention efficacy
- 1Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine
Abstract
Background Training in grant proposal writing is an essential component of professional development for academic scientists in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. Despite the expansion of inter- and intra-institutional grant writing coaching groups as an approach to honing these skills, specific features that enhance or limit coaching group effectiveness have not been rigorously studied. Methods Qualitative inerviews were conducted with a subset of early-career investigators (n=204 and coaches (n=36) engaged in a national, U.S. based, group-randomized trial of grant writing coaching groups to test the effects of two variables on submission and funding of national-level proposals: (1) coaching duration (regular/extended dose) and (2) mode of engaging a scientific advisor (someone with content-aligned expertise) in the coaching process. This report focuses on interviews conducted upon completion of the regular coaching dose - 5 months of biweekly, group-based coaching sessions to support active proposal writing. Interviews were designed to identify which coaching group elements were perceived to be the most critical. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using deductive (participants) or open (coaches) coding to identify themes. Results Triangulation of results from participant and coach interviews showed strong concordance that coaches, peers, and scientific advisors all played key roles in supporting intervention efficacy. Sufficient alignment of scientific fields and/or methodologies among group members was important, although breadth of perspectives was also valued. Other critical group features were skilled and well-organized coaches, detailed feedback, peer-to-peer support (technical and psychosocial), and clear expectations for group functioning. Factors attenuating impact included variation in participants' engagement and "readiness to write," within-group mismatches of expertise or grant mechanisms, and limited research support at some participants' home institutions. Conclusion This study identified key elements of successful grant writing coaching groups and potential barriers to their effectiveness, while yielding insights about tailoring this approach for individuals at different stages of proposal development.
Related
- Optimizing the Patient Experience Through Clinician Coaching or Communication Intervention: A Randomized Pilot Study
- Digital and Coaching Interventions for Uptake of Cancer Genetic Testing : The MiGHT Randomized Clinical Trial
- TVET teachers’ perceptions of ICT integration in resource-constrained teaching contexts: a qualitative thematic analysis of interviews from Hebei, China
- “It’s not necessarily science based”: understanding organ utilisation decision-making in cardiothoracic transplantation in the UK through qualitative interviews
- Caregivers’ experiences of PM2.5 prevention for preschool children in Thailand: a qualitative study with focus group interviews
BibTeX
@misc{mendes2026randomized,
title = {{A randomized trial of grant writing coaching groups: Qualitative interviews revealing key elements of intervention efficacy}},
author = {J. Mendes and C. Wood and R. Jones and J. Engler and A. M. Weber-Main and H. Jones and M. Steiner and K. Okuyemi and R. McGee},
howpublished = {bioRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.17.752282},
url = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.17.752282v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - A randomized trial of grant writing coaching groups: Qualitative interviews revealing key elements of intervention efficacy
AU - J. Mendes
AU - C. Wood
AU - R. Jones
AU - J. Engler
AU - A. M. Weber-Main
AU - H. Jones
AU - M. Steiner
AU - K. Okuyemi
AU - R. McGee
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/17
PB - bioRxiv
DO - 10.64898/2026.09.17.752282
UR - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.17.752282v1
AB - Background Training in grant proposal writing is an essential component of professional development for academic scientists in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. Despite the expansion of inter- and intra-institutional grant writing coaching groups as an approach to honing these skills, specific features that enhance or limit coaching group effectiveness have not been rigorously studied. Methods Qualitative inerviews were conducted with a subset of early-career investigators (n=204 and coaches (n=36) engaged in a national, U.S. based, group-randomized trial of grant writing coaching groups to test the effects of two variables on submission and funding of national-level proposals: (1) coaching duration (regular/extended dose) and (2) mode of engaging a scientific advisor (someone with content-aligned expertise) in the coaching process. This report focuses on interviews conducted upon completion of the regular coaching dose - 5 months of biweekly, group-based coaching sessions to support active proposal writing. Interviews were designed to identify which coaching group elements were perceived to be the most critical. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using deductive (participants) or open (coaches) coding to identify themes. Results Triangulation of results from participant and coach interviews showed strong concordance that coaches, peers, and scientific advisors all played key roles in supporting intervention efficacy. Sufficient alignment of scientific fields and/or methodologies among group members was important, although breadth of perspectives was also valued. Other critical group features were skilled and well-organized coaches, detailed feedback, peer-to-peer support (technical and psychosocial), and clear expectations for group functioning. Factors attenuating impact included variation in participants' engagement and "readiness to write," within-group mismatches of expertise or grant mechanisms, and limited research support at some participants' home institutions. Conclusion This study identified key elements of successful grant writing coaching groups and potential barriers to their effectiveness, while yielding insights about tailoring this approach for individuals at different stages of proposal development.
ER -