1

MEMO


TO: JESSICA JORGENSON
FROM: MATTHEW SCOTT MS
SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL INTERVIEW
DATE: APRIL 29, 2014



Introduction
This memo is a response to your request for a report on an informational
interview. It will provide a summary of the assigned interview of a grant writing
professional. It will detail who was interviewed, what I learned, and what I wish
I had learned from the experience. As an aspiring research psychologist, the
best person for me to interview would be a person successful at winning
funding for psychology research. I ended up interviewing a person of exactly
this description who was surprisingly forthcoming with the information I
requested. I will detail what was learned after describing the interviewee.

The Interview
The search for a good interview candidate was begun by asking some
professors to name people in the department who were successful grant
writers. There were a few names that were commonly mentioned, including a
professor I have worked with extensively, but I wanted to interview someone
with whom I was not too familiar. On April 24, 2014 at 9:00 AM I interviewed
Dr. Benjamin Balas, an assistant professor in the NDSU Psychology
Department. His proven track record of winning sizable grants and willingness
to be interviewed made him the candidate of choice.

After some simple ice-breaking, I asked him some technical questions about
grant dispersion and was given some candid answers. He said that the money
goes from the grantor to the university and then to the researchers. I asked
about the budgets for typical psychology studies that do not require new
equipment and was told that a huge part of the money goes to his staff. For
instance, his lab has a research coordinator that recruits participants along
with paid research assistants. He said that an employee with a $30000 annual
salary actually costs about $60000 per year after benefits and other extras.
Interestingly, he also told me that a professor can buy out his university
duties. If the grant covers the professors desired salary, he is not obligated to
teach courses, and just pays the university a fee for use of the laboratory
space.
2

After covering some of my technical questions, I began to ask Dr. Balas for
advice on writing winning proposals. He started by saying that the temptation
exists for scientists to propose flashy research to impress grantors, but that he
found his success when he stopped doing this. As it turns out, major funding
institutions are not swayed by gimmicks. He said that the NSF wants to see
evidence that the work will constitute a meaningful addition to the knowledge
base, while the National Institute of Health is focused on research team
competence. NIH is looking for a proven track record of successful research, a
team with the technical expertise to deliver what they promise, and solid pilot
data to show that the project is promising. On a related note, Dr. Balas
cautioned against promising too much. While it may be tempting to propose a
huge amount of research in hopes of impressing the grantor, oversized projects
can quickly spring out of control and lead to disappointment on both sides of
the money. His advice was to limit the scope of the project to be focused and
deliverable within the given time frame. It simply is not worth the loss of
reputation to secure a grant in the short term with oversized promises.

By now, we had established that giving the grantors what they want is
important. At this point I had to know how much of his research springs from
original ideas and how much is formulated in response to a Request for
Proposals. This seemed like a powerful question to me, and I was prepared for
Dr. Balas to turn red and tell me to leave. This, thankfully, was not the case.
Without hesitation, he told me that the vast majority of his science comes from
his own ideas, but that there is a little finessing sometimes to fit an RFP. He
said that a scientist will not be truly successful if his work is based on
pandering to funding agencies. However, some amendments must be made at
times to secure funding. He suggested calling institutions first with ideas to see
if they are a fit for the RFP and to be open to any suggestions they may offer to
fulfill their needs. This information came as a relief, as I had begun to fear
lately that research projects were dictated mostly by those who supply the
money. At this point, our time was up. We shook hands as I thanked him for
his time and candor.

Reflection
The interview of Dr. Balas was a pleasant experience. His information on
research budgets was very enlightening. I now understand that it is staff
salaries that make grants run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. His
advice on promising only what can be delivered and what institutions are
looking for will stay with me into my professional career. His candor about the
authenticity of his research and the need to finesse things sometimes was
surprising and informative. Given more time, I would have asked about specific
examples of proposal revision he had done successfully and more technical
information about budgeting research. However, I am quite satisfied with the
pleasance of the conversation and the valuable personal information Dr. Balas
provided.