Most grantsmanship training treats proposal writing as a technical exercise: templates, mechanics, and compliance. Yet funding decisions are not made by templates. They are made by people.

This body of work reframes grantsmanship through the lens of behavioral science, health communication, and decision-making. It is grounded in the reality that reviewers are human actors responding to clarity, coherence, credibility, and purpose, often under cognitive load and time pressure. From this perspective, successful grant writing is not primarily about performance, but about communication.

The curriculum grew out of years of mentoring postdoctoral fellows, early-career faculty, and investigators across academic, clinical, and community-engaged research settings, as well as my experience as a reviewer and scientific leader. Rather than focusing on tactics alone, it emphasizes how researchers think about their work before they write, how they translate purpose into language, and how proposals function as acts of persuasion and trust-building.

This approach is especially relevant in health equity and community-engaged research contexts, where authentic partnership, reflexivity, and narrative coherence are essential, yet often undervalued in traditional grantsmanship training.

The grantsmanship curriculum is independently developed and stewarded through Soul to Soul Leadership LLC. Select modules are currently used in postdoctoral and faculty development settings. The work continues to evolve as part of a broader exploration of purpose-driven leadership, communication, and scholarly translation.

LungTalk: Decision Support for Lung Cancer Screening

LungTalk is a behavioral communication and decision-support body of work focused on lung cancer screening and prevention. It was developed in response to persistent gaps between evidence, guidelines, and real-world uptake, particularly among populations most affected by stigma, medical mistrust, and structural barriers.

Grounded in behavioral science, health communication, and decision-making theory, LungTalk approaches screening not as a simple information problem, but as a complex human process shaped by fear, identity, values, prior experiences with healthcare, and social context. The work emphasizes how risk information is framed, how trust is built or eroded, and how individuals make sense of screening decisions under uncertainty.

Across its evolution, LungTalk has explored multiple modalities for supporting informed, values-aligned decision-making, including tailored messaging, narrative approaches, and digital tools designed to meet people where they are. The core throughline is a commitment to respectful, stigma-informed communication that centers dignity, autonomy, and understanding rather than persuasion alone.

LungTalk is part of my broader program of work focused on translating behavioral science into practical, scalable communication strategies for high-stakes health decisions. The work continues to evolve through research, implementation, and collaboration in clinical and community settings.