Working with a Grants Consultant: Marnie Wiss Interview, Part I

I often get asked about how to find a grants editor or grants consultant. This is a critical question. If you’re lucky enough to have funds or means to secure professional support, you want to know how to use the opportunity wisely.

Even if you don’t have access to working with a grant editor now, understanding options can help you advocate for this opportunity in the future. One good time to do so is when you negotiate a job offer. Another good time is when a dean or administrator asks how they can support early career scholars.

To help you think through finding your next grants editor or consultant, I’m excited to share an interview with editor Marnie Wiss. Marnie has 30 years of experience in publishing and editing. She works with scholars on their grants. I spoke with Marnie about how she, as an editor, works with grant writers.

~An Interview with Marnie Wiss~

Are there qualifications people should look for in an editor? Make sure the editor specializes in academic editing, which takes a very different approach than more literary editing. In academic writing, you don't "bury the lede." You want to give exhausted reviewers exactly what they expect with lots of signposting and clarity. For grant proposals, clarity is more important than literary style. The EFA [Editorial Freelancers Association] has a directory of members [https://www.the-efa.org/member-directory-guided-search/] where you can search for editors with particular skills and specialties. There may be other associations where you can find people that specialize in these skills.

You talk about editing as being “active listening.” What do you mean by that? I see it as my job to “listen” for the thing that really matters to the author and the reader in the middle of everything else thrown on the page or in a conversation. I named my business Osprey Editorial Services because ospreys find the fish hidden in the ocean from very high up. When I work with clients, I always try to meet for a conversation. If it seems like it will be helpful, I may try to elicit the story of their grant by asking a few questions: What is the problem you’re trying to solve? What do we know about it already? What don't we know, and how does your proposal address that? I often have to pull writers out of the methods and back up to this higher level where we can, together, find the “why” of their work. I type up the brief “story” I’ve gleaned from our conversation and send it to them for review. Often they’ll say, "No, I actually meant this." We may go back and forth a few times before we craft a story that clearly conveys the client’s motivation/rationale and intent. This iterative process lays the foundation for writing a proposal that clearly communicates to an external reader why they should care about this research.

You prefer to have a conversation with clients in the initial stages, rather than conducting your work via email. Why is that? To be clear, I do a bit of both. But I do find that discussing some of my questions with the author and defining important concepts can go a lot quicker in a conversation than through the back and forth of email or manuscript queries. It also lets me ask questions in a different way if I can see that I haven’t been clear enough for the author to really get what I’m asking. It’s a shortcut for me because I don’t have to puzzle through things I don’t understand. But it's also that, in describing their work to me face to face, authors are often reminded of why this research matters to them, which gets me excited about it too. An author who is solidly grounded in their own “why” and an editor who is fully on board and invested in a project have a much better chance of convincing reviewers to care about the work. Also, I think more synergy happens face to face, when we can toss ideas around and test out potential approaches. In one case, for example, a client who is particularly visual went to a whiteboard to sketch a figure that illustrated one of the aims. That made it much easier for me to point to gaps or inconsistencies I was seeing, and she fiddled with the figure until it made sense to both of us.

For scholars who might want to pursue academic editing as a career, what would you suggest for how to get started? There are formal ways to gain experience: degree programs and certificates. These pathways may be more expected now than when I started my career. But there are ways to start small. You can work for a lower fee or work for free for colleagues or friends to gain experience and professional feedback on how to grow. You could volunteer for tasks like editing a newsletter to build your skills. But also, figure out what you don’t know - like the mechanics of editing, how to work with clients, or how NIH and NSF work - and work to fill those gaps. Talk to other editors and join associations.

~~~~

I’m grateful to Marnie for sharing her insights. You can find Marnie on LinkedIn. Stay tuned for Part II of this interview where Marnie shares the questions you should ask a grants editor or consultant before working with them.

If you’re looking for more insights from experts, see these interviews: Dr. Letitia Henville on freelance academic editing and Dr. Zawadi Rucks-Ahidiana on learning to navigate grant writing. And if you know someone who might benefit from today’s newsletter, would you mind forwarding it to them?

Thanks for reading and believing that scholars deserve support for incredible ideas.

Betty

Stay in touch: The Newsletter, The Grant Writing Guide, and How to Be a Public Scholar.

P.S. Today is the 100th post of this newsletter! Don’t miss out on the archives. Top posts include developing a grants success mindset, how to talk to a program officer, and why your frame matters.

P.P.S. I’m getting back into sock knitting. Let me know if you’re a fellow knitter on Ravelry. Would love to follow you!