This chapter first looks at multiple real-life examples of grants to analyze the basic elements and diversity features of each grant, discusses the scientific knowledge on grants in detail to further develop a theoretical understanding of grants, compares two basic concepts (i.e. article and grant) to see more clearly what a grant is in comparison to an article, and with action suggestions. A five-step sequence will be followed in each chapter of the book, from intuitive ideas, real-life examples, research summary, concept comparison, to action suggestions, based on Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman’s intuitive judgment theory.

The intellectual objective of this chapter is to build on the intuitive knowledge and deepen and broaden conceptual and procedural knowledge of the uniqueness of grant writing, by learning a series of cases, studying existing empirical evidence, comparing grant writing and article writing, and considering actional suggestions.

The grant review essentially concerns scientific assessment, a critical topic in grantology and a specific area in the science of science. Considering the intuitive knowledge outlined at the start of the chapter, the chapter is intended to focus on the current scientific understanding of grant review, especially on key concepts and challenging issues (e.g. reviewers, review criteria, review processes, review outcomes) to help in preparing the writing of the grant proposal and achieve success in grant applications. While there are different funding agencies and diverse grant review procedures, this chapter does not exhaust all the grant review approaches. Instead, it focuses on major important and challenging issues in grant review. It focuses on the complexity and diversity of grant review.

Grant management is critical because it concerns whether a funded project can be completed and generate strong impacts successfully. Grant management is also complex because it involves knowledge in various disciplines, such as law, finance, methodology, human resources, management, and administration. However, it has not received adequate professional attention and has long been neglected in grant research and grant practice. Given the limited knowledge shown by the new grant writers and the limited literature on grant management, this chapter uses (1) “grant management” as an umbrella term to refer to research management by researchers, grant administration by institutions, and grant management by funders and (2) various types of available materials (e.g., funders’ documents and practical guidelines) along with typical published empirical articles to discuss grant management. The realistic intellectual goal for this chapter is to better understand the importance and complexity of grant management.

A grant is essentially an investment and thus should maximize its returns and minimize its risks. However, the potential returns or potential impacts of a funded project are complex, with multiple types, dimensions, and levels. These make grant impacts a complex system. At the beginning of the grant process, we need to consider the funders’ mission, grant program purposes, grant objectives, or grantees’ motivations for a proposed project. At the end of the grant process, we need to consider project outputs, project outcomes, and eventually grant impacts for a funded project. Thus, the intellectual goal of this chapter is to understand the importance and complexity of grant impacts and to develop a systematic understanding of grant impacts to use as a guide for our professional grant practice.

The main purpose of discussing grant writers in this chapter is not to determine which response is right or wrong. Instead, the chapter is intended to demonstrate the diversity and complexity of grant writers and to motivate new grant writers to pursue grants bravely, as the title of this book suggests. Several real-life cases are reviewed first, followed by a study of the scientific literature on grant writers and a comparison of grant writers to article writers, and finally several practical suggestions are offered for becoming grant writers and starting to pursue grants.

Building on new grant writers’ intuitive responses as the baseline knowledge, this chapter presents real-life cases, discusses scientific research, compares funders and publishers, and provides action suggestions to new grant writers. The learning objective is to understand the complexity and diversity of grant agencies and use this new understanding to guide the research-based practice of grant applications.

This final chapter, different from the previous chapters, is primarily future-oriented. It discusses three ways of pursuing grants in the future, namely, pursuing grants in the future as a grant writer, as a grant professional, and as a grantology scholar.

The intellectual goal of this chapter is to develop a good understanding of the complexity of grant decisions by building on the intuitive knowledge of new grant writers and discussing real-life cases, research studies, comparisons between grant decisions and journal decisions, and action suggestions. Note that this chapter focuses on three major topics related to rejected proposals, success rates, rejection experiences, and especially resubmissions.

Similar to the structure of the first chapter, this chapter presents five cases related to five basic features of grantology, discusses five studies to understand five features of grantology, compares grantology with journalology to show the uniqueness and similarities of both, and proposes action strategies to understand and use grantology in the grant process.

Chapter 6 covers some of the fundamental building blocks of a licensing agreement, namely the license grant and scope (Spindelfabrik v. Schubert & Salzer): how are licensed rights identified -- by enumeration or through portfolio definitions? How are corporate affiliates treated by the licensor and the licensee? What is know-how licensing? How to deal with licenses of future rights? How should the licensed territory be defined? How can the field of use be limited? How do have-made and “foundry” rights work (Cyrix v. Intel)? How do technological changes affect the field of use (Boosey & Hawkes v. DIsney)? How should sublicensing be addressed (Rhone-Poulenc v. DeKalb)?

Reconstruction followed the Civil War and Lincoln’s assassination. Under President Andrew Johnson, presidential reconstruction was favorable to the defeated slaveowners. When Johnson was impeached and then defeated in the polls, Radical Republicans in Congress took over Reconstruction. They were not radical enough to give freedmen 40 acres and a mule, and their efforts to reform Southern state governments were only temporary. President Grant tried to help freedmen, but Republicans transferred their interest from the violent South to the expanding West.