ERIC EJ852393: Grant Writing: Practice and Preparation of University Health Educators

7 Pages·2003·0.07 MB·English

by  ERIC

Grant Writing:
Practice and Preparation
of University Health Educators
JoAnn Kleinfelder, James H. Price, and Joseph A. Dake
ABSTRACT
This national survey of health education faculty (n = 282) found that the vast majority (88%) had been awarded a
grant in the past 5 years, usually in amounts of less than $10,000. Less than one in four had received grants of
$250,000 or more. Although less than one in four faculty (23%) felt prepared to write grants immediately following
graduation, four of five currently felt prepared to do so. Two barriers to grant writing were identified by a majority
of faculty: heavy teaching loads (68%) and administrative or committee assignments (55%). Finally, 90% of the
faculty thought grant writing should be part of formal graduate student training, yet only 65% reported offering
grant writing training to their graduate students.
The position of university/college pro- Recently health education journals and and incentives to grant writing.
fessor requires a wide variety of skills. These online job banks were reviewed regarding In an early study, Monahan (1993) sur-
skills are traditionally divided into three faculty positions for university health edu- veyed full-time faculty at eight New Jersey
broad areas: teaching, research, and service. cators during the 2001/2002 academic year.
Within each of these three areas, there are Of the job postings found, 14 specifically JoAnn Kleinfelder, MEd, is a graduate assistant
numerous competencies which professors identified the job as a health education fac- in the Department of Public Health, University
are expected to meet (Tucker, 1992). For ulty position. Nine of the 14 positions men- of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606; James H. Price,
example, in the research arena faculty are tioned an expectation of grant writing ac- PhD, MPH, is a professor of public health in the
expected to be able to remain current in the tivity. If grant writing is viewed as an Department of Public Health at the University
literature; synthesize large volumes of in- important professional attribute, it would of Toledo. Joseph A. Dake, MPH, is an instruc-
formation; design studies; carry out stud- be expected that research could be easily tor of health education in the Division of Health,
ies; analyze data; write their manuscript re- found on this topic. However, there is a Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202.
sults for publication; and write grants to dearth of studies that have explored grant
fund their research agenda (Sowers-Hoag writing activity of faculty. Furthermore, Review of this manuscript was conducted by the
& Harrison, 1998). these studies have mostly targeted barriers Board of Associate Editors.
American Journal of Health Education — January/February 2003, Volume 34, No. 1 47
JoAnn Kleinfelder, James H. Price, and Joseph A. Dake
state colleges regarding their perspectives on a variety of disciplines at a Midwestern re- face similar barriers and incentives to grant
barriers to grant writing. They identified search university. They found that junior writing as nonhealth education faculty, that
heavy teaching and advising loads, other faculty who had acquired some grant train- courses in grant writing preparation would
scholarly and entrepreneurial interests, ing as part of their doctoral or postdoctoral not be required in the majority of graduate
committee/administrative assignments, and programs still required additional training health education programs, and that barri-
lack of advance warning of funding oppor- in the grant writing process. Barriers to ers to grant writing would be significantly
tunities as barriers. Provisions for techni- grant writing identified by more than 90% related to the amount of grant activity in
cal assistance in seeking external funding of these junior faculty included teaching which faculty are involved.
sources, preparing proposals and budgets, loads, inadequate administrative support,
getting necessary approvals, and dealing and too many committee assignments, METHODS
with campus business staff were cited as whereas incentives were creating new
Respondents
important incentives to grant writing. In knowledge through their grant funded re-
The Directory of Institutions Offering
addition to recognizing barriers and incen- search, the importance of grants in tenure
Undergraduate and Graduate Degree Pro-
tives, it was found that less than 20% of fac- decisions, and being able to build a profes-
grams in Health Education was used to iden-
ulty at the surveyed institutions were ac- sional reputation as a capable researcher.
tify all universities with health education
tively involved in grant activities, whereas A recent study of a Midwestern pre-
majors (American Association for Health
about half said they rarely or never engaged dominately undergraduate institution
Education, 1997). The institutions were
in grant writing activity. found that the top three barriers to faculty
cross-referenced with the Eta Sigma
In a similar study tenure track faculty in grant writing were heavy teaching loads, too
Gamma (1999) Directory of College and
the College of Education at Texas A & M many committee and/or administrative as-
University Health Education Programs and
University reported identical barriers as signments, and heavy advising loads
Facilities to obtain the names and addresses
found by Monahan (1993) and also cited (Sterner, 1999). Incentives for grant writ-
of health education professors. Institutions
lack of training in grant writing, lack of ing identified by these faculty were released
were then randomly spot-checked at their
knowledge of funding sources, and budget- time to work on funded projects, released
Web sites to confirm that data was current.
ing as additional barriers. Respondents sug- time to prepare grant proposals, and being
A total of 970 health education faculty
gested that, as incentives, universities should provided the opportunity to support their
members were identified. From this list a
create grant offices, provide staff support/ research. These studies identified nearly
computerized random sample of 500 fac-
equipment, and place equal emphasis on identical barriers and incentives for general
ulty were selected. The research protocol
grant writing and receipt of grant awards faculty and College of Education faculty.
was approved by the Human Subjects Re-
(Dooley, 1995). The Graduate Competencies for Health
search Review Committee of the university.
Boyer and Cockriel (1998) approached Educators from the National Commission
the barrier/incentive dichotomy of grant for Health Education Credentialing (1998) Instrument
writing through the perceptions of tenured and the Core Competencies for Public A questionnaire on faculty and gradu-
and nontenured faculty selected from Health Professionals from the Council on ate student grant writing activities and per-
American Association of University Profes- Linkages Between Academia and Public ceptions was created through a comprehen-
sors member institutions. Consistent with Health Practices (2001) both cite the need sive review of the literature and through
Dooley (1995), lack of knowledge regard- for health education professionals to be able personal communication with several
ing budgets and funding sources and lack to prepare proposals for funding from ex- highly published health education faculty
of training were regarded as significant bar- ternal sources. However, questions regard- members. The four-page, 24-item question-
riers to grant writing. Consideration of ing grant activity exclusive to graduate naire had 18 items that addressed faculty
grant writing for tenure or promotion de- health education programs remain unan- grant writing training, perceived prepara-
cisions and the inclusion of a strong com- swered. No studies were found that targeted tion, perceived barriers to grant writing, im-
mitment to grant writing from the college professors in health education and their portance of grant writing at their institu-
president qualified as strong incentives. Al- grant writing activities nor the training of tion, perceptions of grant writing training
though tenured and nontenured faculty re- graduate students in grant writing. There- for graduate students, and their actual grant
ported the same barriers and incentives, fore, the purpose of this study was to iden- writing activity, as well as 6 demographic
nontenured faculty regarded both as more tify barriers and incentives to grant writ- and background questions. Most items re-
important than did tenured faculty. ing, explore the level of faculty grant activity quired the respondents to select their re-
In a follow-up study Boyer and Cockriel and determine grant writing preparation in sponses from a series of potential answers.
(2001) examined the factors that influenced graduate health education programs. It was Five items required responses on a 5-point
the pursuit of grants by junior faculty from hypothesized that health education faculty Likert-type scale. The questionnaire was
48 American Journal of Health Education — January/February 2003, Volume 34, No. 1
JoAnn Kleinfelder, James H. Price, and Joseph A. Dake
sent to five published authorities in the ar- writing training for graduate students were institutions had a grants office. Further-
eas of university teaching or survey research, calculated using Pearson product moment more, the majority of faculty reported their
requesting their critical review to establish correlation coefficients and chi-square institution’s grants office provided the fol-
content validity. Minor changes were made analyses. Differences in perceptions of grant lowing three services: conducts searches for
to item format or item wording based on writing by academic rank were calculated grants (73%), conducts grant related train-
recommendations of the questionnaire re- by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi- ing workshops (70%), and helps write seg-
viewers. Internal reliability was assessed on square analysis. Significance was set at ments of the grants (58%) (Table 2).
the responses to the final survey using p≤.05.
Kuder-Richardson 20 for the dichotomous
response items and Cronbach alpha for the RESULTS
Likert-type response items. Because of the Demographics and Background Charac- Table 1. Demographics and
wide variety of grant topics on the ques- teristics Background Characteristics of
tionnaire, it was anticipated that the inter- A total of 500 questionnaires was sent to Health Education Faculty
nal reliabilities would be low, KR =.52 and
health education faculty and 28 were
20
.56, respectively, were found for the two Characteristics N %
nondeliverable (e.g., moved, deceased, etc.).
types of items.
The response rate was 60% (282/472). The
Sex:
Procedure responding faculty members were almost Male 151 53.5
A variety of techniques was used to help evenly divided by sex, three-fourths were ten- Female 129 45.7
increase the response rate for this survey, ured, and almost half were full professors.
Tenure status:
including limiting the length of the ques- The vast majority of respondents had doc-
Tenured 216 76.6
tionnaire to four pages; printing the ques- toral degrees (99%) and were full-time fac-
Tenure track 47 16.7
tionnaire on colored paper (green); using a ulty (97.5%). A plurality (38%) taught in Nontenure track 16 5.7
personally addressed, hand-signed cover departments with 6–10 colleagues (Table 1).
Rank:
letter assuring confidentially of responses; Grant Writing Activity of Faculty
Full professor 135 47.9
including a stamped, self-addressed return
The vast majority (88%) of faculty had Associate professor 90 31.9
envelope; and mailing the questionnaire
been awarded one or more grants in the past Assistant professor 55 19.5
through first-class mail (Church, 1993;
5 years as a primary or coinvestigator. The Instructor 1 .4
King, Pealer, & Bernard, 2001). Addition-
majority (59%) had been awarded 5 or
Employment status:
ally, a three-wave mailing was used to maxi-
fewer grants in the past 5 years. The major-
Full time 275 97.5
mize the return rate (Dillman, 2000). Two
ity (51%) of faculty had received grant
Part time 5 1.8
weeks after the initial mailing, a second
amounts of less than $10,000. Less than one
mailing of the questionnaires and coded, Highest degree
in four had received grants of $250,000 or
stamped, self-addressed return envelopes obtained:
more. Of those who had received grant
Doctorate 279 98.9
were mailed to nonrespondents with a
funding, the majority (53%) had received
Master’s 3 1.1
hand-signed cover letter urging a prompt
internal university funding. Faculty were
response. Two weeks later a hand-signed, Number of full-time
equally likely to have received federal or state
color-matched postcard mailing was sent as faculty in department:
grants, 45 and 44%, respectively (Table 2).
a reminder for those who had not yet re- 1–5 81 28.7
Less than one in four faculty (23%) felt
6–10 108 38.3
sponded to the second mailing.
prepared to write grants immediately fol-
11–20 80 28.4
Statistical Analysis lowing their graduate education. However,
21–50 8 2.7
SPSS 10.0 for Windows was used to ana- four of five felt they were currently prepared
Number of years
lyze the data. Descriptive data were created to write grants. The faculty were asked to
teaching full time at
for individual items (e.g., frequencies, per- identify where they had received training to
college level:
centages, and ranges), and measures of cen- write grants by selecting from eight alter-
(Range=1–45 years)
tral tendency (e.g., means and standard de- native answers, one of which was the generic
1–10 years 86 30.4
viations) were calculated for selected category “other.” Only two sources of train-
11–20 years 89 31.5
variables. Comparisons by perceived barri- ing were identified by 50% or more of the 21–30 years 79 27.9
ers to writing grants, perceived importance faculty: through trial and error (57%) and 31–45 years 26 9.4
of obtaining grants for promotion and ten- informally through colleagues (50%).
ure, and perceived importance in grant Almost 98% of the faculty reported their Note: N=282.
American Journal of Health Education — January/February 2003, Volume 34, No. 1 49
JoAnn Kleinfelder, James H. Price, and Joseph A. Dake
A Pearson product moment correlation both tenure (55%) and promotion (60%) The faculty were asked if they thought
coefficient was calculated to examine the (Table 4). grant writing should be part of the formal
relationship between faculty members’ per- When the faculty were asked whether training of graduate students, and 90% re-
ceived level of help from their grants office their department expected new faculty to sponded affirmatively (Table 5). However,
and the number of grants a faculty mem- be involved in grant writing almost 82% when faculty were asked if their depart-
ber received. The correlation was found not responded affirmatively. This is the same ments offered grant writing training for
to be significant (r=-.007, p= .91). However, percentage as those who claimed it was their graduate students, considerably fewer
there was a significant correlation (r=.426, moderately important, important, or very (65%) responded affirmatively. Of the pro-
p<.001) between a faculty members’ per- important for promotion (82%). grams that did offer grant writing training,
ceived current level of preparation to write A series of Pearson product moment they were almost evenly divided as elective
grants and the number of grants the fac- correlation coefficients were calculated for (32%) or required (28%) courses.
ulty member had received. level of faculty grant activity by perceived It was hypothesized that the majority of
Barriers to Grant Writing and Their importance of obtaining grants for promo- health education faculty believed that
Solutions tion (r=-.107, p=.07) or to receive tenure graduate students could learn grant writ-
Faculty members were asked to identify (r=-.116, p=.052). The importance of grants ing through more informal training, such
their perceived barriers to grant writing for promotion or tenure was not a signifi- as by having them assist the faculty in their
from a list of seven potential responses. Two cant impetus for faculty to write grants. grant writing activity. This hypothesis was
of the barriers were identified by a major- Graduate Student Preparation supported; 64% of respondents claimed
ity of faculty members: heavy teaching loads
(68%) and administrative or committee
assignments (55%). About one in four Table 2. Grant Writing Activity of College Health Education Faculty
(28%) claimed they were currently not ad-
Item N %
equately prepared to write grants (Table 3).
The faculty were also requested to iden-
Have you been awarded grants as a primary
tify how their university could help them
or coinvestigator?
increase their grant writing activity by se- Yes 49 88.3
lecting all applicable choices from a list of
Full time faculty with grants in the last 5 years:
seven, one of which was “other.” There were
1–5 grants 167 59.2
four items selected by half or more of the
6–10 grants 62 21.9
faculty: provide released time (72%), offer
11–20 grants 16 5.8
technical support (56%), offer personal
21–30 grants 3 1.2
support (56%), and assign a portion of the Grant amounts received:
indirect funds to the faculty member (49%). Less than $10,000 144 51.2
The faculty were least supportive of giving $10,000–$49,999 111 39.6
greater consideration to grant writing for $50,000–$149,999 97 34.5
promotion and tenure (28%) (Table 3). $150,000–$249,999 64 22.8
It was hypothesized that there would be $250,000–$499,999 60 21.5
$500,000–$1 million 45 16.2
a significant relationship between the num-
Greater than $1 million 49 17.5
ber of perceived barriers to writing grants
and the number of grants obtained. How- Source of grants awarded in past 5 years:
ever, the relationship (Pearson product Internal university 149 52.7
moment correlation) was not significant Federal 128 45.4
(r=-.053, p=.37). State 123 43.6
Private 102 36.2
Importance of Grants for Careers
Local 39 13.9
The faculty were asked to rate the im-
Other 19 6.8
portance of obtaining grants for tenure and
Services provided by grant office:
promotion by selecting their answers from
Searches for grants 205 72.7
Likert-type responses (very important=5 to
Conducts grant related workshops 196 69.5
not important=1). The responses to both
Helps write grants 164 58.2
questions were similar; a majority claimed
Continues on next page
grants were important or very important for
50 American Journal of Health Education — January/February 2003, Volume 34, No. 1
JoAnn Kleinfelder, James H. Price, and Joseph A. Dake
that their faculty attempted to involve grants, and no significant difference was sors) found no significant differences
graduate students in grant writing activity. found (offered a course, M =.61, SD=.27 (F=2.23, df=2, 278, p=.11). Also, a chi-
However, when faculty were queried regard- versus did not offer a course, M=.60, square (2 x 3) on perceptions of whether
ing how well prepared their average gradu- SD=.27; t=.301, df=247, p=.76). Finally, it formal grant writing should be part of
ate student was in grant writing after was hypothesized that faculty who were not graduate education by academic rank found
graduation, less than half (46%) of respon- well prepared to write grants when they no significant differences (x2=5.00, p=.29).
dents perceived the students as moderately graduated but who now perceived them-
to very well prepared. selves to be well prepared to write grants DISCUSSION
A chi-square (2 x 2) analysis of whether would more likely support formal grant The vast majority of health education
faculty members perceived formal grant writing for their graduate students than fac- faculty appear to be active in grant writing.
writing training as important in graduate ulty who believed they had not been pre- This most likely reflects the importance re-
student training by whether their depart- pared at graduation and who believed they ported by the faculty of obtaining grants for
ment offered a grant writing course found were currently not prepared. A chi-square promotion and tenure. Grant writing by
no significant difference (x2=.095, p=.76). (2 x 2) analysis (x2=.130, p=.79) failed to health educators was usually for modest
Furthermore, a t-test was calculated for confirm this hypothesis. amounts (less than $150,000 per grant).
whether the department offered a grant Grant Writing Perceptions by Rank This may be due to a variety of reasons:
writing course by the mean percentage of An ANOVA for barriers by academic more grants for health education may be
faculty in the department who had written rank (assistant vs. associate vs. full profes- available at the lower funding range; many
quality studies in health education may be
able to be done for lesser amounts; and the
Table 2. (Continued) faculty may not have been prepared enough
in grant writing to compete for larger grants
Item N %
(those greater than $250,000). The results
Completes all administrative work for grant submission 133 47.2 of the current study partially support the
Other 43 15.2 last reason, not professionally prepared to
There is no grant office at our institution 7 2.5 write grants. Less than one in four faculty
claimed they felt prepared to write grants
Grant writing training:
immediately after their graduation, but four
Through trial and error 161 7.1
Informally through colleagues 141 50.0 of five felt they were currently prepared to
I have had no formal grant writing training 105 37.2 do so. Thus, many of these faculty mem-
Through college or university workshops 96 34.0 bers seem to have learned grant writing in
In my graduate program 78 27.7 an apprenticeship fashion through trial-
Professional conferences or workshops 75 26.6 and-error and through colleagues.
Through professional readings 73 25.9 Because most faculty write grants for
Other 29 10.3
smaller sums, the current apprenticeship
How prepared do you feel you were to write grants immediately form of learning grant writing needs to be
following your graduate education? replaced with more formal graduate train-
Very well prepared 7 2.5 ing. The findings of this study also indicate
Well prepared 22 7.8 that the vast majority of faculty think grant
Moderately prepared 35 12.4 writing should be part of the formal train-
Neutral 53 18.8
ing of graduate students, even though only
Minimally prepared 65 23.0
two-thirds claimed their departments were
Not at all prepared 63 22.3
currently offering grant writing training.
How well prepared do you feel you are currently to write grants?
However, more than half of the respondents
Very well prepared 80 28.4
said their health faculty attempt to involve
Well prepared 100 35.5
graduate students in grant writing activity.
Moderately prepared 53 18.8
Neutral 26 9.2 Still, the majority of faculty believe that the
Minimally prepared 18 6.4 average graduate student is only moderately
Not at all prepared 4 1.4 to minimally prepared to write grants after
graduation. The authors believe that grant
Note: N=282. writing training should be offered in doc-
American Journal of Health Education — January/February 2003, Volume 34, No. 1 51
JoAnn Kleinfelder, James H. Price, and Joseph A. Dake
toral programs as a required course and as
Table 3. Perceived Barriers to Grant Writing and Suggested Solutions
an elective in master’s degree programs. We
support this recommendation based par-
Item N %
tially on this study’s finding that the ma-
Common barriers to grant writing:
jority of faculty reported that their depart-
Heavy teaching loads 192 68.1
ment expects new faculty to write grants.
Administrative or committee assignments 156 55.3
Boyer and Cockriel (2001) also concluded
Other scholarly and entrepreneurial interests 118 41.8
that “it is imperative that graduate pro-
Lack of advance warning of funding opportunities 93 33.0
grams institute training programs in pro-
Not adequately prepared to write grants 79 28.0
posal writing for future faculty” (p. 22). In
Lack of assistance for proposal submission 77 27.3
addition to training for future faculty, this Other 58 20.6
training in proposal writing would also Suggestions to universities for increasing grant writing:
serve students who obtain jobs outside of Provide released time to work on grants 203 72.0
academia whose jobs may demand grant Offer technical support (locate grants, write
writing skills. proposals, budgeting) 159 56.4
It is noteworthy that our findings iden- Offer personnel support (graduate assistant, secretary) 159 56.4
Assign a portion of indirect funds to faculty members 138 48.9
tified barriers (heavy teaching loads; admin-
Offer administrative support (travel funds, equipment) 131 46.5
istrative or committee assignments; other
Give greater consideration to grant writing in promotion
scholarly or entrepreneurial interests) and
& tenure 78 27.7
inducements (provide release time; offer
Other 23 8.2
technical support and offer personnel sup-
port) that were identical to those found in Note: N=282.
previous research (Boyer & Cockriel, 2001;
Monahan, 1993; Sterner, 1999). This cor-
roboration helps to confirm the external Table 4. Importance of Grants for Career Advancement
validity of the current study’s results.
Although the findings from this study Item N %
concur with previous research and reveal
Importance for tenure:
new information relative to health educa-
Very important 85 30.1
tion faculty, its results are descriptive. New
Important 71 25.2
research should focus on findings that are
Moderately important 65 23.0
quantitative and predictive. The reasons
Minimally important 36 12.8
why grant writing courses are not required Not important 23 8.2
in doctoral programs or offered as electives
Importance for promotion:
in master’s programs needs to be explored.
Very important 83 29.4
It is also suggested that grant writing activ-
Important 85 30.1
ity of faculty in undergraduate programs be
Moderately important 62 22.0
surveyed and compared to grant writing
Minimally important 36 12.8
activity in graduate health education pro- Not important 15 5.3
grams. Additionally, studies should explore Does your department expect new
how some graduate students became faculty to engage in grant writing?
involved in grant writing activity and oth- Yes 230 81.6
ers did not, and whether such activity
Note: N=282.
resulted in faculty members who were more
successful at obtaining grants. Studying fac-
ulty members who have been highly suc- writing capability of future and current their faculty involved in grant writing. Few
cessful in their careers at obtaining grants health education faculty. studies have been reported in the literature
should be explored to help develop a The results of this study and others cited on innovative techniques for improving
potentially common core of factors (e.g., should give department administrators a grant writing activities in university faculty.
personal and/or environmental attributes) better understanding of the barriers and One such study reported the positive grant
that might be used to facilitate the grant incentives for improving the proportion of writing environment created when a stand-
52 American Journal of Health Education — January/February 2003, Volume 34, No. 1
JoAnn Kleinfelder, James H. Price, and Joseph A. Dake
4), 61–68.
Table 5. Graduate Student Preparation for Grant Writing
Boyer, P. G., & Cockriel, I. (2001). Grant per-
Item N % formance of junior faculty across disciplines:
Motivators and barriers. Journal of Research
Should formal grant writing be a part of graduate education?
Administration, 2, 19–23.
Yes 253 89.7
Church, A. H. (1993). Estimating the effect
Department offers grant writing training for
of incentives on mail survey response rates: A
graduate students:
Yes 182 64.5 meta-analysis. Public Opinions Quarterly, 57,
Elective course 89 31.6 62–79.
Required course 80 28.4 Council on Linkages Between Academia and
Do your faculty attempt to involve graduate students Public Health Practice. (2001). Core Competen-
in grant writing activity? cies for Public Health Professionals. Retrieved ???
Yes 180 63.8 from www.trainingfinder.org/competencies/
How prepared is the average graduate student in
comp.pdf [AU: Please give date of retrieval.]
grant writing when he/she graduates?
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet sur-
Very well prepared 5 1.8
veys: The tailored design method. New York:
Prepared 35 12.4
Wiley-Interscience.
Moderately prepared 91 32.3
Dooley, L. M. (1995). Barriers and induce-
Minimally prepared 101 35.8
ments to grant related activity by a college of
Not at all prepared 42 14.9
education faculty. Research Management Review
Note: N=282. 7(2), 10–24.
Easter, L. M., & Shultz, E. L. (1998). Ten
ing committee of colleagues offered social extent that the 40% nonresponders differ heads work better than one: An innovative
support, collaboration, and technical exper- from the 60%, a possible nonresponse bias model for collaborative, college-wide grant writ-
tise (Easter & Shultz, 1998). exists. To the extent such a bias exists, this ing. Research Management Review, 10, 24–32.
Finally, the limitations of this study, would be a threat to the external validity of Eta Sigma Gamma (1999). Directory of In-
which could result in potential bias of the the results. The survey explored only one stitutions Offering Undergraduate and Graduate
results, need to be reviewed. The current area (monothematic), grant writing, in Degree Programs in Health Education. Muncie,
study surveyed health education faculty depth. To the extent this may have sensi- IN: Eta Sigma Gamma, Ball State University.
only. Therefore, these findings may not be tized some faculty to grant writing issues King, K. A., Pealer, L. N., & Bernard, A. L.
generalizable to faculty and departments and resulted in a response-set bias, then this (2001). Increasing response rates to mail ques-
outside of health education. Graduate would have been another threat to the in- tionnaires: A review of inducement strategies.
health education programs at universities ternal validity of the results. The majority American Journal of Health Education, 32, 4–15.
in the United States only were surveyed. of the aforementioned limitations are char- Monahan, T. C. (1993). Barriers and induce-
Therefore, these findings may not represent acteristic of most self-report surveys and are ments to grant-related activity by New Jersey
grant writing activity of faculty from pro- not inherent weaknesses of this study. state college faculty. SRA Journal, 24(4), 9–26.
grams at institutions outside of the conti- National Commission for Health Education
nental United States. Due to the potentially ACKNOWLEDGMENT Credentialing. (1998). A Competency-Based
sensitive nature of assessing faculty mem- The authors thank Susan K. Telljohann, Framework for Graduate Level Health Educators.
bers’ professional activities, some faculty HSD, CHES, for her assistance in data Allentown, PA: Author.
may have answered questions in a socially collection. Sowers-Hoag, K., & Harrison, D. F. (1998).
desirable manner. If so, this would repre- Finding an academic job. Graduate survival skills.
sent a threat to the internal validity of the REFERENCES Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
study. The survey questionnaire was closed- American Association for Health Education. Sterner, A. (1999). Faculty attitudes toward
format and did not attempt to obtain addi- (1997). Directory of institutions offering under- involvement in grant-related activities at a pre-
tional information from the faculty. If other graduate and graduate degree programs in dominantly undergraduate institution (PUI).
important grant-related questions or alter- health education. Journal of Health Education, SRA Journal, 31, 5–21.
nate responses to the existing questions 28, 281–295. Tucker, A. (1992). Chairing the academic de-
were missed, then this could be a threat to Boyer, P. G., & Cockriel, I. (1998). Factors partment: leadership among peers. Phoenix, AZ:
the internal validity of the study. The re- influencing grant writing: Perceptions of ten- Council on Education, Onyx Press.
sponse rate to the survey was 60%. To the ured and nontenured faculty. SRA Journal, 29(3-
American Journal of Health Education — January/February 2003, Volume 34, No. 1 53