Introduction
External funding is a key marker for both institutional and individual success in biomedical research. There has been a concerted effort to integrate grant writing coaching into the professional development programs offered to faculty and researchers to support grant writing skill development, which requires both the technical knowledge about grant proposals, their components, and submission formats and a supportive ecosystem of senior and peer colleagues who provide coaching, encouragement, and accountability throughout the process of grant development. Grant writing support programs often include workshops, one-on-one and group coaching sessions, and peer review processes designed to improve the quality of grant submissions. The growing popularity of these initiatives reflects a broader trend toward professionalizing the process of grant writing and recognizing it as a distinct skill set that requires dedicated training and support [Reference Crowley, Al-Khatib and Wang1]. While mentorship has been a cornerstone of academic career development, coaching has emerged as a distinct and complementary tool for academic professional development [Reference Thakore, Naffziger-Hirsch and Richardson2,Reference Williams, Thakore and McGee3]. Next, we will discuss the evolving roles of mentors and coaches in biomedical workforce development.
The evolving role of mentorship in academic development
Traditionally, mentorship has been associated with developing research skills, personal growth, and career advancement. The literature underscores the importance of mentoring in increasing research productivity, enhancing grant success, and promoting the overall development of junior faculty [Reference Seehusen, Rogers and Al Achkar4]. Mentorship also supports personal development, as it provides mentees with the necessary tools to overcome the challenges of academic career progression and fosters a sense of belonging within the academic community [Reference Seehusen, Rogers and Al Achkar4].
Recent studies and academic development practice have expanded the concept of mentorship to include various models, such as peer mentoring and group mentoring, which address the diverse needs of early-career investigators. These models recognize that traditional one-on-one mentorship may fall short in addressing today’s complex and multifaceted challenges in academia. For instance, group mentoring allows mentees to benefit from the collective wisdom of multiple mentors [Reference Seehusen, Rogers and Al Achkar4, Reference Deiorio, Carney and Kahl5] or interact with one mentor and several peers [Reference Huizing6], thereby developing a professional development community and a support network. This evolution in mentoring practices reflects a broader understanding of the dynamic nature of academic careers and the need for adaptable and responsive mentoring frameworks.
Coaching as a tool for academic development
Mentoring and coaching are both pivotal in academic professional development, though they serve distinct purposes and are often confused or conflated. Mentoring is a development activity that significantly influences a mentee’s professional growth, usually characterized by a long-term, holistic relationship aimed at career advancement and skill development [Reference Carmel and Paul7]. In contrast, coaching is commonly short-term and goal-oriented, focusing on specific tasks and skills enhancement [Reference Hussey and Campbell-Meier8]. Both mentoring and coaching share overlapping skills, such as providing feedback and guidance; however, mentoring tends to be broader and more relationship-oriented, whereas coaching zeroes in on performance improvement in particular areas [Reference Stokes, Fatien Diochon and Otter9]. Furthermore, the context in which these activities occur can deeply influence their effectiveness [Reference Stokes, Fatien Diochon and Otter9]. Mentoring and coaching are increasingly combined to leverage both methodologies’ strengths, offering more flexible and comprehensive development opportunities within academic settings [Reference Koopman, Englis and Ehgrenhard10]. Unlike mentoring, which is typically characterized by long-term relationships and broad career guidance, coaching focuses on specific tasks or skills and aims to improve performance in a particular area [Reference Colwell, Bear and Helman11]. Coaching is often iterative, involving observation, feedback, and re-performance cycles designed to help the coached achieve predefined goals. This approach is particularly effective in developing technical skills and has positively impacted physician well-being, making it an essential tool in the academic development of biomedical professionals [Reference Seehusen, Rogers and Al Achkar4].
Grant writing coaching has emerged as a critical component of academic development, particularly for early-career investigators seeking to secure funding in an increasingly competitive environment [Reference Jones, McGee and Weber-Main12, Reference McGee, Saran and Krulwich13]. The literature highlights that coaching is about improving isolated skills and fostering a mindset of continuous improvement and self-reflection. This approach has rapidly gained recognition as a structured and effective means of enhancing investigators’ abilities to craft compelling grant proposals. Unlike traditional mentoring, which tends to be broader in scope, grant writing coaching focuses specifically on the skills and strategies necessary for successful grant applications. The structured nature of coaching provides targeted support tailored to each researcher’s unique needs, making it a valuable tool in the academic development toolkit [Reference Roland J Thorpe, Jamboor and Eileen14]. Through regular and structured feedback, coaching helps individuals refine their approach to specific challenges, enhancing their overall professional effectiveness. This is particularly relevant in academic medicine, where the demands for clinical and research excellence are high. By focusing on targeted areas of development, coaching complements the broader scope of mentoring, providing a more nuanced support for early-career investigators [Reference Norman, Mayowski and Wendell15].
One of the most compelling reasons for the growing emphasis on grant writing coaching is its potential to address disparities in grant success, particularly among underrepresented groups in biomedical research. Research has shown that minority and female researchers often face systemic barriers that limit their participation in funded research [Reference Kalyani, Yeh and Clark16–Reference Witteman, Hendricks and Straus20]. Grant writing coaching can play a crucial role in leveling the playing field by providing these investigators with the support they need to overcome these predictable barriers and unexpected setbacks [Reference Báez, Idris and Lawson21]. For example, tailored coaching programs that focus on the challenges faced by underrepresented groups have been shown to increase their success rates in securing grants [Reference Jones, Vishwanatha and Krug22]. Adding coaching to the arsenal of workforce development tools enhances the opportunities for early-stage investigators to access broad and diverse perspectives and supports [Reference Ahmed, Muldoon and Elsaadany23].
The efficacy of group-based coaching for academic professional development has been supported previously. Group coaching promotes collective problem-solving, allows participants to navigate group dynamics, and helps create peer learning communities to foster mutual support in organizational settings [Reference Brown and Grant24]. Furthermore, group coaching using video-conferencing was shown to reduce burnout and promote well-being among early-career researchers by providing emotional and professional support [Reference Fainstad, Mann and Suresh25]. Specific to grant writing, group coaching provides participants with how iterative feedback and engagement with expert colleagues in group coaching contexts significantly enhance grant proposal writing among biomedical researchers [Reference Weber-Main, Thomas-Pollei and Grabowski26]. This approach promotes clarity in writing and improves the quality and precision of proposals through comprehensive peer feedback [Reference Weber-Main, Thomas-Pollei and Grabowski26].
Goal of the present study
The evolving practice of mentorship and coaching in career development highlights the need for a multifaceted approach to supporting early-stage investigators. Grant writing coaching is a rapidly developing and increasingly essential competence-based strategy for academic career development. Its impact on research productivity and its potential to address disparities in grant success make it a valuable tool for researchers and institutions. Still, the roles of the coaches lack clarity. This study aimed to address this gap and answer the following research question:
What are the mechanisms through which grant writing coaches provide technical and social support to early-stage biomedical investigators?
Materials and methods
Study setting
The study reported here is part of a larger initiative within the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN), a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded initiative designed to enhance the diversity of the biomedical research workforce by providing mentorship, professional development, and grant-writing coaching to early-career investigators. The NRMN aims to support individuals from underrepresented groups in biomedical research, including those at minority-serving institutions (MSIs) and other low-resourced institutions. Central to the NRMN’s mission is the provision of grant writing coaching, a key component designed to equip early-stage investigators with the skills necessary to secure research funding and build successful research careers. The NRMN’s approach to grant writing coaching is structured and multifaceted, encompassing individualized coaching, group-based learning, and access to a network of experienced mentors. The focus is on building participants’ confidence and competence in grant writing, with particular emphasis on aligning their research proposals with funding priorities and navigating the complexities of the grant submission process. By fostering these skills, the NRMN not only enhances the grant writing abilities of participants but also contributes to their overall professional development and research productivity [Reference Johnson Hemming, Baez and Hall27].
Within the NRMN network, the Strategic Empowerment Tailored for Health Equity Investigators (NRMN-SETH) award includes supporting investigators from minority-serving institutions (MSIs) and other low-resourced institutions. The NRMN-SETH aims to address the disparities in grant funding success among researchers from underrepresented groups by providing targeted grant writing support and fostering an inclusive research environment. The barriers to success can include a lack of access to experienced mentors, limited research infrastructure, and the challenges of balancing heavy teaching loads with research activities [Reference Lininger, Kirby and Laurila28, Reference Wang, Gupta and Cao29]. The NRMN-SETH addresses these challenges by providing tailored coaching that helps investigators develop the skills to write compelling grant proposals that compete successfully for NIH and other funding. Specifically, the program supports investigators through a combination of grant writing workshops, group coaching, and peer mentoring. These activities are tailored to address the unique challenges researchers face at MSIs and low-resourced institutions, such as limited access to research infrastructure and mentorship opportunities. By providing these researchers with the tools and support necessary to develop competitive grant proposals, the NRMN-SETH award plays a crucial role in enhancing the diversity of the biomedical research workforce [Reference Levites Strekalova, Kornetti and Pemu30, Reference Mubasher, Lawson and Pemu31]. The NRMN-SETH initiative also focuses on creating sustainable research environments at these institutions by fostering collaborations and building research capacity [Reference Strekalova, Kornetti and Wang32]. This collaborative approach is particularly important for minority-serving and low-resourced institutions, where resources may be limited, and the collective strength of a research network can significantly enhance the likelihood of grant success [Reference Báez, Idris and Lawson21, Reference Ofili, Tchounwou and Fernandez-Repollet33, Reference Ofili, Sarpong and Yanagihara34].
Study design and review
This qualitative study employed a semi-structured interview design. Interviews aimed to elicit the experiences of established NIH-funded investigators who served as coaches for the NRMN-SETH project. The study protocol was submitted for review to the Institutional Review Board of the first author and received an exempt designation. All participants provided verbal consent for the recording and use of the interview data for analyses.
Participants
NRMN-SETH program had five cohorts, with most coaches participating in more than one cohort, and all NRMN-SETH coaches were invited to participate in interviews. All coaches have had prior successful experience with NIH funding and represented a diversity of institutions (e.g., minority-serving, very high (R1), and high (R2) research activity). Coaches received a small honorarium for the coaching activities, but no compensation was offered for the interviews. All coaches were introduced to established practices in group-based grant-writing coaching [Reference McGee35] and encouraged to integrate it with their own approaches to proposal development.
Data collection and analysis
Experiences of coaches and elicitation of coach roles were explored using semi-structured, one-on-one interviews. The interview guide (Appendix A) was developed in consultation with the NRMN-SETH program staff and piloted with grant writing coaches from an institutional program of the first author. Audio recordings were transcribed using secure automatic transcription tools and checked for correctness, after which the audio files were deleted. Data were managed using the Framework Method [Reference Gale, Heath and Cameron36]. The first author read the transcripts and developed an initial coding framework, which was applied to all transcripts by two additional coders. Additional emerging codes were discussed within the team and existing codes were modified to incorporate newly identified items. The coded text was reduced to create a participant-by-theme matrix illustrating key points and providing key illustrative quotes from each transcript.
Results
The content analysis of responses from the 16 coaches reveals several recurring topics that reflect the collective experience and insights of the coaches in the NRMN program. Multiple coaches address these topics, indicating common activities in grant writing coaching related to (1) providing personalized guidance, (2) managing group dynamics, (3) navigating grant writing capacity, and (4) extending support beyond formal meetings (see Table 1 for the themes, subthemes, and representative quotes).
Table 1. Identified themes, subthemes, and representative quotes of coaching activities
Provide Personalized Guidance
Coaches viewed personalized guidance as one of the core grant writing coaching activities, which included the need to offer individualized feedback, tailor guidance to meet program participants’ needs, and create a safe environment to build confidence. Many coaches emphasized the importance of providing individualized feedback and coaching tailored to the specific needs of each participant. While standard coaching sessions had a group format, coaches often met one-on-one with the participants to address their unique challenges “to make sure they are making progress” (NRMN_16). This personalized approach was central to helping participants navigate the complexities of grant writing, offering them the guidance needed to overcome specific challenges and improve their proposals. The coaches often tailored sessions to address the unique concerns of each participant, providing detailed feedback on documents, structuring grant proposals, and offering advice on various aspects of the grant writing process.
Coaches emphasized that they often tailored guidance to meet participants’ needs. In describing the process of reviewing drafts and proposal components, one coach shared how they met with participants repeatedly to refine their specific aims. While working on the specific aims “over and over again” took a long time, the coaches offered encouragement to the participants that once the “specific aims [are] really nailed down, the rest of the proposal is gonna largely write itself” (NRMN_01). This iterative process was key to ensuring that the proposals were well-structured and clearly articulated. Another coach also highlighted the detailed attention given to participants’ work, noting, “I spent a long time on methodology” (NRMN_03) underscoring the importance of thoroughly reviewing each section of the grant proposal to ensure clarity and rigor. While following a logical progression in guiding the development of proposals, the coaches demonstrated flexibility in their support by being responsive to the specific timing needs of participants. Coaches often adjusted communication methods to fit the situation and shared how they provided support to help participants stay on track, even when they were facing challenges, highlighting how continuous encouragement was a key aspect of their coaching approach. The coaches stayed flexible to give the participants agency and ensure that “the meetings were driven by them [participants].” (NMRN_01).
Create a safe environment to build confidence
Coaches reflected on how they worked closely with participants to develop their confidence in grant writing by viewing program participants as junior colleagues, aiming to build rapport and confidence and create a supportive and collaborative coaching environment. Confidence building included both the attention to technical and social aspects of grant writing. On the technical side, this included reviewing documents, structuring grant proposals, and offering guidance on various aspects of grant writing. Coaches also focused on demystifying the process by sharing examples and models to follow: “I was able to share examples with them of full proposals that I might not have had otherwise.” The coach also prompted future coaching programs to consider some questions: “[W]ere they able to see other examples? Did they have access to things like that? I think that’s incredibly valuable to have […] other examples of successful applications.”(NRMN_10).
In terms of the social aspect of confidence-building, coaches viewed informal social interaction as a foundational aspect of building trust, accountability, and “dedication for the others” (NRMN_09). Proactive communication helped participants stay on track with their writing goals, but the group format of the program helped normalize the different challenges that participants faced along the way. Coaches recognized that “[t]here’s a lot of burnout even among early-career faculty” (NRMN_06), and nurtured the social support network to promote social connection and self-efficacy among the participants.
Manage group dynamics
Set regular group meetings
Coaches carried out the activity of organizing group work and set meetings every 2-3 weeks for their groups. While the frequency of the meetings was dictated by the NRMN-SET program, the coaches acted as the core facilitators for group interactions. These regular meetings allowed for consistent progress and the ability to “work together as a team” (NRMN_11) to address issues as they arose. Although the NRMN-SETH participants are asked to commit 10 hours or more a week to grant writing, finding a recurring time that works for several people requires some negotiation and adjustment. Coaches described the individualized attention they provided by scheduling bi-weekly meetings and offering continuous support. While most coaching groups had 4-6 participants, some groups were larger due to the group randomization assignment. The larger group size created logistical challenges and required coaches to “interlace weeks [to] be weekly for a certain period of time” (NRMN_09) before switching to less frequent meetings. For most coaching groups, the meetings took about two hours. While this time was focused mostly on technical work, structuring drafts, and getting comments, the coaches also noted that these regular meetings served the social function of building a supportive peer community for the “core group” of participants who attended the sessions regularly. (NRMN_06)
Establish milestones and deliverables
Following the program framework, coaches implemented a structured approach by setting clear milestones and “a list of deliverables” (NRMN_15) for each meeting, ensuring that participants made consistent progress toward their goals. Coaches discussed specific grant sections as development milestones and worked to ensure that participants set and adhered to the agreed-upon schedule. Coaches identified this structured approach as a mechanism for both progress and accountability for program participants. Regular meeting schedules helped to create a consistent rhythm, but coaches also noted the need to develop the means for open accountability and planning. Over time, as coaches became more familiar with their role, they developed tools to define and track the specific tasks the participants needed to complete by certain dates. As one coach put it, “I think I got better in the second cohort at [] helping people understand and actually putting together a timeline” (NRMN_05).
Check in and maintain engagement
In addition to setting up regular meetings, coaches emphasized the importance of holding participants accountable to the agreed-upon schedules through regular follow-ups and reminders. Coaches viewed this accountability mechanism as a crucial element of the coaching process, ensuring that participants adhered to the schedules and completed their assigned tasks. Most coaches took it upon themselves to send reminders as a tool to maintain accountability by establishing clear milestones, regularly following up on participants’ progress, ensuring that participants were prepared and aware of upcoming tasks, and “insist[ing] on sticking to the commitment despite shifting priorities” (NRMN_09). Coaches highlighted the challenge of getting all participants to contribute equally as the level of engagement among participants varied. Some participants were highly proactive, actively seeking feedback and participating in discussions, while others struggled to stay on track with their tasks, “would not show up, [] or say they’re not ready to share things” (NRMN_07). This variability created challenges in maintaining a productive group dynamic and ensuring that all participants benefited equally from the coaching process. Another coach experienced similar challenges, stating, “Some people didn’t show up; it’s hard to follow.” (NRMN_14) This inconsistency in participation affected the overall effectiveness of the coaching process. This lack of consistency was another role for the coaches who realized the need to maintain momentum and group cohesion.
Facilitate peer-to-peer review
Peer-to-peer review is an essential part of the NRMN-SETH grant coaching experience. Many coaches commented on their experience facilitating the peer-to-peer review and collaborative feedback, and coaches also described their efforts to host discussions around grant writing and career development, saying, “I facilitated the group providing feedback” (NRMN_05). Coaches discussed the benefits of real-time peer feedback, noting that it helped participants understand the review process. This approach helped to create a supportive environment where participants could learn from each other’s experiences. However, coaches observed that peer interactions were sometimes limited by the participants’ varying levels of experience and noted that the success of this approach depended on the group’s dynamics, with some groups benefiting significantly from the interactions, while others struggled to engage in meaningful discussions: “I tried to figure it out and encourage them to share and request feedback, but I wasn’t very successful.” (NRMN_13) Finally, coaches noted that they had to intentionally push for discussions during meetings: “I intentionally forced them to have discussions during the meeting.” (NRMN_16) This effort was crucial for ensuring that participants engaged with each other and benefited from the collective knowledge of the group.
Navigate grant writing capacity
Assess individual grant writing readiness
Coaches frequently encountered participants with different levels of experience in grant writing. This created challenges in providing appropriate guidance, as some participants were well-prepared to submit grants, while others were still developing the foundational skills needed to draft a competitive proposal and “were not as advanced in their writing as others ” (NRMN_15). This variability in experience often made it challenging for coaches to deliver guidance that was equally beneficial to all participants. Some coaches suggested that participants should have prior grant submission experience to benefit fully from the program. This would ensure that participants have a foundational understanding of the grant writing process.
One coach described the difficulty in maintaining cohesion within a group with varying experience levels, when “people are not ready” or “they would have a proposal that is 10 years old” (NRMN_09). These issues were sometimes exacerbated by the participants’ inexperience with grant writing or not having a well-articulated research topic, leading to frustration and disengagement. The differing levels of progress in grant writing made it challenging to keep all participants aligned. This created a situation where more experienced participants could move forward while those less familiar with grant writing struggled to keep up. One coach mentioned the struggle of working with mentees who were not ready to submit a grant. This lack of preparedness made it challenging to provide effective coaching. Several coaches suggested that participants should have prior experience in grant submission before entering the program. The need for prior experience emerged as a potential solution to these challenges, with coaches advocating for a more selective entry process that would ensure participants are adequately prepared to benefit from the coaching program. This prerequisite would ensure that participants have a basic understanding of the grant writing process, allowing them to gain more from the coaching provided.
Encourage participation in mock study sections
The mock study sections were viewed as a valuable component of the program, providing participants with critical feedback and a realistic experience of the grant review process. Mock study sections also extended the group experience to a larger ecosystem for the reinforcement of progress and accomplishments. However, not all participants took advantage of the mock study sections, which limited their exposure to constructive criticism and the opportunity to improve their grant proposals. Coaches viewed the mock study sections as a valuable and realistic component of the program, providing participants with a critical experience that mimicked the formal review process of grant proposals. Many coaches perceived these sessions as essential for helping participants understand the rigor and expectations of actual funding reviews, with some describing them as eye-opening opportunities that “some of them [participants] didn’t take advantage of” (NRMN_13).
In preparing participants for the mock study sections, coaches played a pivotal role in encouraging a mindset of readiness and resilience. They frequently guided participants through the grant’s individual sections, helping them anticipate questions and critiques they might receive. Coaches often dedicated additional one-on-one time or small group sessions to refine specific aims, research design, and presentation of the proposal’s significance. They emphasized clarity and coherence, urging participants to present their ideas in ways that would be compelling to reviewers. By providing detailed feedback and encouraging revisions, coaches helped participants polish their proposals and gain confidence in presenting their research ideas. Furthermore, coaches helped participants prepare emotionally, normalizing the rigorous nature of the review process and encouraging them to view critical feedback as a learning tool rather than a setback. Coaches often reminded participants that such feedback was part of the process, reassuring them that constructive critiques would ultimately strengthen their proposals. Through this preparation and encouragement, coaches fostered a supportive environment, enabling participants to approach the mock study sections with a more robust and open perspective, ultimately readying them for real-world grant evaluations.
Emphasize institutional and programmatic support
The success of the NRMN program was heavily influenced by the level of institutional and programmatic support and “buy-in” (NRMN_13) available to both coaches and participants. Coaches frequently highlighted the need for strong institutional buy-in and support to ensure that participants could fully engage with the program. This support was crucial in providing participants with the protected time needed to focus on their grant writing and in integrating the program into the broader institutional framework, thereby enhancing its effectiveness and sustainability. Coaches noted that without robust institutional support, participants are likely to struggle with the demands of the NRMN program. Therefore, institutional buy-in was viewed as critical for the success of programs like NRMN, as it allows participants to engage deeply with the coaching process and take full advantage of the resources and guidance provided.
Coaches emphasized that for the NRMN program to be truly effective, there must be a strong commitment from the participants’ home institutions to “institutional support to actually free up the faculty time required for mentoring” (NRMN_02). This commitment includes providing protected time for participants to focus on grant writing, offering necessary resources, and recognizing the effort of the coaches and the potential contribution of coaching programs for the institution’s overall research infrastructure. To capitalize on the value of grant writing coaching programs, the institutions need to provide the necessary time, resources, and infrastructure to support their faculty and staff in their grant writing endeavors. This support not only helps participants focus on developing high-quality grant proposals but also ensures that the program’s benefits are fully realized within the broader context of the institution’s goals.
Extend support beyond formal meetings
Provide accessibility for urgent assistance
Coaches across the program described a strong commitment to accessibility and responsiveness, emphasizing that being available for participants was integral to an effective coaching process. They often extended their support beyond scheduled group sessions, creating multiple communication channels to ensure participants felt supported. Many coaches shared their personal contact information and explicitly invited participants to reach out with urgent questions or concerns as “some of [the] mentees, they sent emails 3 times, sometimes 4 times a wee.” (NRMN_14). Several coaches emphasized the importance of communicating with participants outside of scheduled meetings. This ongoing support, provided through various channels such as email, Slack, or phone calls, was crucial for addressing urgent questions, offering continuous guidance, and ensuring participants remained on track with their grant writing and career development. This type of support also helped to reinforce the formal coaching sessions and allowed coaches to be responsive to the participants’ evolving needs.
Coaches tailored their availability based on participants’ needs as they recognized that quick, on-demand support was essential to maintaining momentum in grant writing, where even minor setbacks or uncertainties could stall progress. Some coaches described the importance of offering flexibility with meeting times, allowing one-on-one sessions when participants required additional guidance. By making themselves accessible in these ways, coaches fostered an environment where participants felt their questions were valued, helping to build participants’ confidence in the grant-writing process. This accessibility allowed participants to seek guidance when they faced immediate challenges, reducing delays in their progress and creating a sense of continuous support. Another coach noted how they adapted their support to the participants’ schedules and needs: “I stayed in touch with participants who needed additional help” (NRMN_05), indicating a flexible approach to coaching that extended beyond the confines of regular meetings.
Consider support beyond the coaching program
Several coaches continued to support participants even after the formal coaching sessions had ended. This ongoing relationship helped participants navigate challenges that arose after the program, providing them with a safety net as they advanced in their careers. Coaches described their efforts to stay in touch with participants beyond the structured program for continued coaching and support, particularly as participants worked on subsequent grant submissions or other career milestones. For example, one coach (NRMN_14) was asked for a letter of support for a separate proposal. Ongoing support beyond formal meetings played a vital role in the coaching process. Coaches who made themselves available outside of scheduled sessions provided participants with reliable guidance and reassurance, helping them overcome obstacles and achieve their goals. This continuous support was not only about being accessible but also about actively engaging with participants to ensure their success in grant writing and career development.
Discussion
This qualitative study employed a semi-structured interview design to explore the experiences of established NIH-funded investigators serving as grant-writing coaches within the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) Strategic Empowerment Tailored for Health Equity Investigators (NRMN-SETH). Coaching is an emerging professional development strategy employed across the U.S., and this paper contributed to the conceptual definition of this activity and provided in-depth insights into the roles and processes of group-based, peer-supported grant-writing coaching. Coaches shared their reflections through guided interviews that elicited descriptions of their strategies, the challenges they encountered, and the techniques they used to foster participants’ growth. The study’s results revealed that grant-writing coaching in NRMN-SETH involved multiple facets, including personalized feedback, building confidence, managing group dynamics, and encouraging a supportive peer environment. Coaches emphasized the importance of individualized guidance, providing iterative feedback on grant sections such as specific aims and methodology, and adapting communication to fit participants’ needs. Another key coaching role was the creation of a safe and collaborative atmosphere that normalized participants’ challenges and allowed them to build both technical and social confidence. Additionally, structured approaches to group engagement and deliverable timelines fostered accountability and momentum. Notably, coaches reported that managing varying levels of experience among participants was sometimes challenging but was addressed through tailored support and additional coaching efforts. These findings provide a foundation for discussing the critical role that coaching plays in fostering the development of competitive grant proposals and, ultimately, in advancing the careers of early-stage investigators within the biomedical sciences.
Before discussing this study’s insights into the mechanisms and impact of grant-writing coaching, it is important to address its limitations. First, as a qualitative inquiry reliant on self-reported data from coaches, the study may reflect inherent biases related to participants’ retrospective perceptions and experiences. This approach, while beneficial for exploring in-depth personal accounts, limits the ability to assess outcomes through objective measures or standardized assessments of coaching efficacy. Another limitation is the absence of direct feedback from the program participants (i.e., early-stage investigators), whose perspectives could provide a fuller understanding of the program’s impact on grant-writing skills and career progression. Furthermore, the study’s findings may be influenced by contextual factors unique to NRMN-SETH, such as specific institutional and resource dynamics, potentially limiting the generalizability of the results to other institutions or populations. Future studies might address these limitations by incorporating mixed methods to triangulate the qualitative findings of this study with quantitative measures of participant engagement in mock sections and rates of proposal submission and award and include participant perspectives, to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of grant-writing coaching programs.
This study contributes to the growing conceptual discourse on structured, skill-specific coaching within career development, particularly in enhancing grant-writing efficacy among underrepresented early-career investigators. By delineating specific coaching mechanisms—such as iterative feedback, confidence-building, and managing group dynamics—the study provides evidence for the effectiveness of group-based, peer-supported professional development strategy, where coaching offers a task-focused, iterative learning approach that complements traditional mentorship [Reference Seehusen, Rogers and Al Achkar4, Reference Roland J Thorpe, Jamboor and Eileen14]. The experiences of the NRMN-SET coaches align with evidence suggesting that structured coaching targets to improve professional skill development, fosters self-efficacy [Reference Jones, Vishwanatha and Krug22], and complements institutional capacity to support early-stage investigators [Reference Strekalova, Kornetti and Wang32]. The evidence presented in this paper also supports the argument that group-based learning environments in coaching can catalyze the social support necessary for overcoming systemic barriers faced by underrepresented groups, thus addressing disparities in grant success and research productivity [Reference Nguyen, Chaudhry and Desai17, Reference Ahmed, Muldoon and Elsaadany23].
The implications extend to institutional policy and faculty development programing, suggesting that embedding coaching programs within academic structures may increase grant-writing success rates for diverse populations, ultimately promoting inclusivity in biomedical research. Future studies could empirically test hypotheses that structured, iterative coaching leads to higher grant submission and success rates compared to traditional mentorship alone. A longitudinal, mixed-methods design could explore whether coaching impacts long-term career progression metrics such as independent funding attainment and publication rates. Additionally, further research could investigate the effectiveness of integrating peer-led components and mock review sections, building on findings that peer-to-peer feedback enhances learning [Reference Jones, McGee and Weber-Main12, Reference Mubasher, Lawson and Pemu31]. Testing these hypotheses could substantiate coaching as a pivotal intervention for developing research capacity among underrepresented scholars, informing broader workforce development strategies in academia.
The results of this study suggest several practical applications for structuring future grant-writing coaching programs within biomedical workforce development initiatives at minority-serving and low-resourced institutions. Implementing a structured, feedback-driven coaching approach could significantly enhance the grant-writing skills of early-career investigators, thereby improving their competitiveness in securing funding. Programs should consider adopting a multi-tiered coaching framework that includes one-on-one support, group-based sessions, and iterative feedback on specific grant sections, aligning with practices that help participants refine complex skill sets incrementally [Reference Seehusen, Rogers and Al Achkar4, Reference Roland J Thorpe, Jamboor and Eileen14, Reference Ofili, Sarpong and Yanagihara34]. To maximize impact, institutions could also facilitate peer-support networks and mock study sections, which foster collaboration and normalize common challenges in grant development, enhancing participants’ confidence and resilience [Reference Jones, McGee and Weber-Main12]. For sustainability, securing institutional buy-in to provide protected time and resources for participants is essential, allowing them to prioritize these coaching activities amid other academic responsibilities. These strategies, grounded in the findings of this study, offer actionable frameworks for creating supportive environments that can empower underrepresented scholars to navigate the competitive landscape of biomedical research funding.
In conclusion, this study highlights the multifaceted role of grant-writing coaches in supporting early-career investigators from underrepresented groups within the NRMN-SETH program. The findings demonstrate how targeted, individualized feedback, confidence-building strategies, and a collaborative group environment foster essential skills for successful grant writing. By integrating these insights into structured programs at minority-serving and low-resourced institutions, coaching can serve as a powerful tool for advancing research equity in the biomedical workforce.
Supplementary material
The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.10080
Author contributions
Yulia Strekalova: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing-original draft, Writing-review & editing: Selin Kavak: Formal analysis: Vanessa Caridad Rodriguez: Data curation: Sara Midence: Data curation, Project administration: Lee S. Caplan: Writing-original draft: Winston Thompson: Writing-original draft: Muhammed Y. Idris: Writing-original draft: Jonathan Stiles: Writing-original draft: Priscilla Pemu: Writing-original draft: Alexander Quarshie: Writing-original draft: Adriana Baez: Conceptualization, Writing-original draft, Writing-review & editing: Maritza Salazar Campo: Writing-original draft: Elizabeth Ofili: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing-original draft, Writing-review & editing.
Funding statement
Research reported in this publication was partly supported by the National Institutes of Health through grant number 1U24GM132217-01. The content is solely the authors’ responsibility and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health
Competing Interests
None declared.
Open access
