📣Special Alert: We have published the first interview in our series of discussions with former program managers, officers, and directors. Scroll down for the link, and if you find value in the video, please subscribe to our channel. While the first interviews will draw on my own network of former funding officials, I plan to invite a diverse range of interviewees, and the more subscribers, the more likely someone will agree to be interviewed. If you have a recommendation for someone to be featured (including yourself), please let me know. Thank you!

Last week I introduced the idea that information is a commodity. This week I want to go deeper and consider what actually makes information useful: context.

Context determines whether information is meaningful and relevant to you, or not. It is what tells you whether something is urgent, helpful, distracting, or simply not worth your time right now. In 2026, when you can access endless information quickly, distinguishing which information advances your career becomes even more important.

Let us look at a few places where context matters for PIs seeking research funding.

1) Macro trends versus immediate funding opportunities

One of the biggest context mistakes I see is when someone consumes information that is correct but most relevant to someone at a different career stage or with different types of responsibilities.

For example, there are always real or anticipated shifts in funding priorities. If someone is a leader at their institution, they may be involved in decisions like faculty cluster hires, the development of a new center, or even long-term facilities planning. In that context, it makes sense to look far on the horizon and focus on macro trends: where dollars are going, what strategic areas are rising, and how those shifts may play out five or more years from now.

But if you are an early-career PI who has yet to win a single-investigator award, your context is different. You likely do not need to spend your limited time trying to interpret five-to-ten-year funding forecasts. What matters more is understanding a) what programs are open to you now, b) which ones are realistic targets, and c) what actions will move you toward a competitive proposal in the near term.

This does not mean that macro trend information is unimportant. It means it is unevenly important. Career stage is a major piece of context that determines how you should use macro information. Another piece is whether you have reason to believe your research area will be affected by a shift. Even then, remember: “less funding” does not mean “no funding.” The question is what will actually be available and what are the realistic pathways for getting your work supported.

2) Early-career awards and focusing on the wrong urgency

Another area where context matters is early-career awards. Many PIs are excited about these awards for good reasons: they are prestigious, career-shaping opportunities. There is also a common perception that early-career awards might be easier to win than other awards. In most cases, that perception does not hold true. These awards are highly competitive.

PIs often pay close attention to any news about potential changes to early-career programs. They track rumors, wait for updates, and feel distressed when timelines or requirements are unclear.

The context question is this: are you actually ready to pursue that opportunity?

If you have not yet spoken to a program officer or program manager connected to the underlying technical program, then worrying about the early-career mechanism is often premature. If you have not run your idea by anyone at the funding agency itself, or even attempted outreach, then you are focusing on information about a specific vehicle before you have done the required foundational work.

In many cases, it is putting the cart before the horse. The near-term priority is not tracking changes to a special program. The near-term priority is determining program fit, building relationships, and getting clarity on the most promising research direction.

3) Topic fit versus portfolio fit

Another common context gap is the difference between topic fit and portfolio fit, of your research to the funder’s needs.

A PI might read a program description and believe their topic matches what is being solicited. The missing context is related to the portfolio itself: what has already been funded, what gaps the program officer is trying to fill, and what strategic direction they are trying to shape right now.

This is where information from the printed page can be misleading. A program description can tell you what the program supports broadly, but it does not always tell you about priorities.

One way to begin building context is to look at prior awards. For federal agencies, you can often find information on funded awards through databases like USASpending.gov or on the NSF website. That retrospective view can provide information on what kinds of projects were supported.

But be careful! Retrospective context is not the same as current context. Past awards tell you something, but they cannot replace knowledge of what is being prioritized now. That is why conversations with program staff and colleagues are so valuable.

4) The most important context: your actual capacity

Finally, the most important context is your own situation.

What is on your calendar in the next few months? When will you realistically have time to write? How many proposals have you already submitted this year? Do you feel they are strong and aligned, or do you feel uncertain about their competitiveness?

Your capacity and timing shape everything. They shape what you should pursue, how many applications you should attempt, and whether a particular opportunity is realistic right now. Ignoring your own context is one of the fastest ways to end up overwhelmed, too busy, and frustrated while producing work that is not your best quality.

Next week, I will move to the second implication of information abundance: execution. Once you have information and the appropriate context, you need a plan for implementation. This is where decisions become actions, momentum builds, and progress becomes visible. See you then.

Former Program Manager Interview: How funding decisions really work

Many faculty lose funding opportunities before they even finish drafting the proposal because they’re treating the process like paperwork instead of a back-and-forth exchange of ideas. In my interview with former ARO program manager Dr. Ralph Anthenien, he breaks down how to communicate with program managers, shape a fundable idea, and avoid the common pitfalls that sink proposals. And, he explains why a '“recommend decline” from an evaluator could even be a positive sign!

When you are ready, here’s how we can help

Need to get your research funded, this year? Check out our 12-week program to get you there.

Check out our storefront where you can access our free Unlocking DOD Funding for University Researchers course and other resources, including for faculty applicants.

Ready to book a call to discuss how our program can support faculty at your institution? Let’s chat!