Strategic Grantsmanship

The Narrative Thread: What Reviewers Are Actually Tracking as We Read Your Grant Proposal

Narrative coherence in grant proposals is not about style—it is about strategy.

When writers talk about “narrative” in grants, it is often misunderstood as storytelling in the literary sense. Reviewers are not looking for drama, flourish, or creative voice. What we are tracking—often subconsciously—is whether the proposal maintains a coherent narrative thread from beginning to end.

This narrative thread is not ornamental. It is the mechanism that allows reviewers to follow logic, evaluate significance, and maintain confidence in the investigator and the proposed work.

Has AI Changed Your Proposal’s Audience?

The first rule of writing? “Write to your audience!” For scientific and medical grant proposals, that audience comprises our human scientist and stakeholder peers. Or does it?

How to Clarify a Study’s Estimated Enrollment

Reviewers want to fund scientifically sound projects with the potential for great impact on health outcomes for all patients. Understand and acknowledge these expectations, then address them with the appropriate evidence to address those concerns.

You’ve designed your study in league with your community engagement and research teams. You have secured IRB approval, and you have drafted your funding proposal in collaboration with your site PIs and research team. Even with all the moving parts required for a study with human subjects, the research design has come together well.

Then you look at your estimated enrollment across study sites and stop short. They’re skewed. What to do now?