Introduction
Oppenheimer, D. M. (2006). Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly. Applied Cognitive Psychology 20(2), 139-156. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1178
- Google Scholar gives this paper 568 citations; according to OpenAlex, it has a citation percentile by year and subfield of 98.65.
Markowitz, D. M. (2019). What words are worth: National Science Foundation grant abstracts indicate award funding. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(3), 264-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X18824859
For the magazine University Affairs, I write a monthly advice column called “Ask Dr. Editor.”
1. Readability
I don’t advise using any of the readability formulas, including the one integrated into hemingwayapp.com. For me, readability has nothing to do with word length. Instead, it has to do with how well a reader can process and understand a written text.
I wrote about extraneous cognitive load in a piece for my column called “Reducing the weight of your words.“
2. Concision
I chose a paragraph from this sample SSHRC postdoctoral grant application: https://www.ogrants.org/grants/silva_laura_2021 — I am highly appreciative of scholars who are willing to share their grants through OpenGrants, and so, in making suggestions for editing their work, I am not commenting on the quality of the ideas in this grant, but only how those ideas are expressed.
I wrote about how to cut “is” in my column, in a piece called “A Quick Shave for Your Grant Proposal.“
The non-AI tool that I made to analyze writing is called writingwellishard.com. Here’s a short video that I made about how to use it:
3. Coherence
I chose a sample from this CIHR grant application shared through OpenGrants: https://www.ogrants.org/grants/hammond_chad_2016
I wrote about using given-to-new constructions in a piece for my column called “Literature Reviews that Work.”
At the present, it doesn’t seem to me that genAI can identify and correct choppy writing.
4. Design
I learned about “CRAP” from Williams’ The Non-Designer’s Design Book and from the brilliant Flora Gordon, who teaches “Plain Graphics and Design” through SFU Continuing studies.
C – Contrast
We discussed this CIHR grant application: https://www.ogrants.org/grants/redfield_rosie_2007
I shared images filtered through Clobis, the colour-blindness simulator.
R – Repetition
Repetition isn’t used too much in grants, but you can see it in this non-Canadian application, which uses repetition along with alignment and contrast: https://www.ogrants.org/grants/ioi_2023
A – Alignment and P – Proximity
I was impressed by the use of contrast, repetition, alignmnet and proximity in this grant: https://www.ogrants.org/grants/piwowar_heather_2017a
5. Audience
In my presentation, I suggested using Google Scholar to see if a jargon term is well know generally, and using the Advanced Search option within Google Scholar to see if a jargon term is used in some of the biggest journals in a given discipline.
I’ve also published twice about how to write for an academic audience outside of your discipline:
- “Being understood outside your discipline”
- “Writing for peer reviewers from outside your field: lessons from non-fiction”
Let me email you these PDFs:
- Until they are formally published through University Affairs, please treat these documents as if they are embargoed. I published my summary of the NFRF Peer Reviewers’ Perspective doc in my January 2025 piece for my column. My summaries and the PDFs for SSHRC, CIHR, and NSERC will be published in my column in May, June, and July respectively.
- I was fortunate to be able to receive funding to hire three UBC graduate student interns to support this project: Andrea Kampen, Olivia Brophy, and Athena Pallas.
- Because I’m hoping to update these documents when I’ve done more interviews, I’ve asked for your email address. This approach means that I can email you with updated or new documents when they are available. Because I want to keep these docs up-to-date, I ask you to not circulate the PDFs at all; instead, please direct your colleagues to my column, where I’ll publish the URL that folks can use to get an email with the doc they’re interested in.
6. Practice
45-minute group discussion. Within your table, choose one of the below grants to discuss. I recommend focusing on a particular section of the proposal, like just the first page or just the opening of the lit review, because you won’t have time to edit the whole thing. After your group discussion, I’ll bring us back together as a big group and will ask each table to share what you noticed.
Practice using any of the below strategies in your edits:
- Concision – cut “is” by finding a word to be the new verb
- Cohesion – use “given-to-new” sentence structure
- Design – apply CRAP
- Audience – use jargon when it isn’t jargon for the biggest journal in the discipline
What are the limits of these suggested editing practices? Which strategies for enhancing readability aren’t working in your grant?
Sample grants:
| SSHRC | CIHR | NSERC | Mellon |
| download as PDF | download as PDF | download as PDF | download as PDF |
| open as Google Doc | open as Google Doc | open as Google Doc | open as Google Doc |
If you enjoyed this workshop, please:
- connect with me on LinkedIn
- come to my ‘Ask Me Anything’ hour on the last day of the conference
- check out my resources for research administrators
- get in touch with me to discuss a webinar or in-perosn worksho for your institution
- hire me to support your understaffed grant review office during peak grant season
- meet me: I’m coming to the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences in Toronto in May/June 2025, and will be giving a number of talks there. When I have details about the dates, times, and locations, I’ll share those on my email list, The Shortlist.
- meet me: I live in Montréal and would love to connect over coffees with research administrators, grants facilitators, and generally fun people in the city. I am new to Quebec and barely know anyone, so I am especially keen to connect with folks in my new town.