Science on a Shoestring: Building Nursing Knowledge With Limited Funding

Building the science for nursing practice has never been more important. However, shrunken federal and state research budgets mean that investigators must find alternative sources of financial support and develop projects that are less costly to carry out. New investigators often build beginning programs of research with limited funding. This article provides an overview of some cost-effective research approaches and gives suggestions for finding other sources of funding. Examples of more cost-effective research approaches include adding complementary questions to existing funded research projects; conducting primary analysis of electronic patient records and social media content; conducting secondary analysis of data from completed studies; reviewing and synthesizing previously completed research; implementing community-based participatory research; participating in collaborative research efforts such as inter-campus team research, practice-based research networks (PBRNs), and involving undergraduate and doctoral students in research efforts. Instead of relying on funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other government agencies, nurse researchers may be able to find support for research from local sources such as businesses, organizations, or clinical agencies. Investigators will increasingly have to rely on these and other creative approaches to fund and implement their research programs if granting agency budgets do not significantly expand

Normalizing Rejection

Getting turned down for grant funding or having a manuscript rejected is an uncomfortable but not unusual occurrence during the course of a nurse researcher’s professional life. Rejection can evoke an emotional response akin to the grieving process that can slow or even undermine productivity. Only by “normalizing” rejection, that is, by accepting it as an integral part of the scientific process, can researchers more quickly overcome negative emotions and instead use rejection to refine and advance their scientific programs. This article provides practical advice for coming to emotional terms with rejection and delineates methods for working constructively to address reviewer comments