The Grant Writer’s Mindset: Developing Strategic Thinking for Competitive Funding

Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Institution: [Institution Name]
Date: June 2025

Abstract

The contemporary research funding landscape demands sophisticated strategic thinking from grant writers who must navigate increasingly competitive environments where success rates continue to decline. This paper examines the cognitive frameworks, strategic mindsets, and psychological competencies that distinguish successful grant writers in today’s competitive funding ecosystem. Through an interdisciplinary analysis drawing from cognitive psychology, strategic management theory, and behavioral economics, this study identifies the key mental models and thought processes that enable effective grant writing. The research reveals that successful grant writers develop distinctive cognitive patterns characterized by systems thinking, stakeholder analysis, risk assessment capabilities, and adaptive strategic planning. These mental frameworks enable practitioners to craft compelling narratives that align research objectives with funder priorities while anticipating and addressing potential concerns. The findings suggest that strategic thinking in grant writing can be developed through deliberate practice, mentorship programs, and structured training interventions that focus on cognitive skill development rather than merely technical writing abilities. Understanding and cultivating the grant writer’s mindset represents a critical factor in improving funding success rates and advancing scientific research initiatives.

Keywords: grant writing strategy, competitive funding, strategic thinking, research funding psychology, proposal development, funding success mindset

1. Introduction

The pursuit of research funding has evolved into a highly sophisticated strategic endeavor requiring far more than technical expertise and compelling research ideas. In an era where funding success rates for major agencies like the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health have declined to less than 20% for many programs, the ability to think strategically about grant writing has become a critical determinant of research career success (Jacob & Lefgren, 2011). The grant writer’s mindset encompasses a complex constellation of cognitive abilities, strategic frameworks, and psychological competencies that enable practitioners to navigate the intricate landscape of competitive funding effectively.

Strategic thinking in grant writing transcends traditional notions of persuasive writing or technical communication, incorporating elements of market analysis, stakeholder psychology, risk management, and adaptive planning that mirror sophisticated business strategy development (Porter, 1996). Successful grant writers must simultaneously function as researchers, strategists, marketers, and psychologists, anticipating reviewer concerns while positioning their work within broader scientific and societal contexts. This multifaceted cognitive challenge requires developing mental models that can integrate technical excellence with strategic positioning and narrative construction.

The importance of understanding the grant writer’s mindset extends beyond individual success to encompass broader implications for scientific progress and innovation. When promising research projects fail to secure funding due to strategic rather than scientific shortcomings, the entire research enterprise suffers potential setbacks in knowledge advancement and societal benefit (Azoulay et al., 2019). Conversely, when researchers develop sophisticated strategic thinking capabilities, they can more effectively communicate the value and significance of their work, leading to better funding decisions and enhanced research outcomes.

Contemporary funding agencies increasingly recognize that supporting excellent science requires not only rigorous peer review processes but also clear communication of research value and strategic positioning by applicants. The National Science Foundation’s emphasis on broader impacts, the National Institutes of Health’s focus on translational potential, and emerging requirements for public engagement demonstrate that funding agencies expect grant writers to think strategically about how their research connects to larger scientific and societal goals (Holbrook & Frodeman, 2011).

This paper examines the cognitive foundations of strategic grant writing, identifying the key mental frameworks and thought processes that enable success in competitive funding environments. By understanding these psychological and strategic dimensions, researchers, institutions, and funding agencies can develop more effective approaches to grant writing training, mentorship, and support that ultimately enhance the quality and impact of funded research.

2. Theoretical Foundations of Strategic Thinking in Grant Writing

The theoretical foundations of strategic thinking in grant writing draw from multiple disciplinary sources that collectively illuminate the cognitive complexity of effective proposal development. Strategic management theory provides frameworks for understanding competitive positioning, resource allocation, and stakeholder analysis that are directly applicable to the funding landscape (Barney, 1991). Grant writers must analyze the competitive environment, assess their unique value propositions, and position their proposals strategically relative to competing applications and funding priorities.

Cognitive psychology offers insights into the mental processes that enable complex problem-solving and decision-making under uncertainty, capabilities that are essential for navigating the ambiguous and highly competitive grant writing process (Kahneman, 2011). Successful grant writers must manage substantial cognitive loads while synthesizing technical information, anticipating reviewer responses, and crafting coherent narratives that span multiple evaluation criteria and stakeholder perspectives. The ability to maintain working memory capacity while engaging in meta-cognitive reflection about strategy effectiveness represents a sophisticated cognitive achievement.

Systems thinking theory provides another crucial foundation for understanding the grant writer’s mindset, as effective proposal development requires recognizing and managing complex interdependencies between research objectives, methodological approaches, budget constraints, institutional capabilities, and funder priorities (Senge, 1990). Grant writers must develop mental models that can accommodate multiple levels of analysis simultaneously, from detailed technical specifications to broad societal implications, while maintaining coherence and strategic focus throughout their proposals.

Behavioral economics contributes understanding of how cognitive biases and heuristics affect both grant writers and reviewers, enabling strategic writers to anticipate and address potential psychological barriers to funding success (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). For example, understanding loss aversion can help grant writers frame research benefits in ways that emphasize potential missed opportunities rather than just positive outcomes, while awareness of confirmation bias can guide strategic positioning that aligns with reviewer expectations and preferences.

The concept of deliberate practice from expertise research provides frameworks for understanding how grant writing competencies develop over time through focused, goal-directed activities that systematically address specific skill deficits (Ericsson et al., 1993). Strategic thinking in grant writing represents a form of professional expertise that can be developed through structured practice activities, feedback mechanisms, and reflective analysis of both successful and unsuccessful funding attempts.

3. Core Components of the Strategic Grant Writing Mindset

The strategic grant writing mindset encompasses several core cognitive components that work synergistically to enable effective proposal development. These components represent distinct but interconnected mental capabilities that successful grant writers develop through experience, training, and deliberate practice.

Stakeholder analysis capability represents perhaps the most fundamental component of strategic grant writing thinking. Effective grant writers develop sophisticated mental models of the various stakeholders involved in funding decisions, including program officers, peer reviewers, institutional administrators, and broader scientific communities (Locke et al., 2008). This stakeholder awareness enables strategic positioning that addresses multiple audience needs simultaneously while anticipating potential concerns or objections from different perspectives. Grant writers must understand not only the technical expertise and preferences of reviewers but also the programmatic priorities of funding agencies, the institutional contexts that shape evaluation processes, and the broader societal expectations that influence funding decisions.

Systems thinking represents another crucial component, enabling grant writers to understand and communicate how their proposed research fits within larger scientific ecosystems and contributes to broader knowledge advancement goals (Meadows, 2008). This capability involves recognizing interdependencies between different research areas, understanding how methodological innovations can impact multiple fields, and appreciating how research outcomes might generate cascading effects across scientific and societal domains. Systems thinking also enables grant writers to identify potential collaborations, anticipate implementation challenges, and develop contingency plans that demonstrate sophisticated project management capabilities.

Risk assessment and mitigation thinking distinguishes successful grant writers who can anticipate potential problems and develop credible solutions before reviewers identify concerns (Kaplan & Garrick, 1981). This capability involves analyzing technical risks, methodological limitations, resource constraints, and external factors that might affect project success, then developing specific strategies for managing these risks. Strategic grant writers present risk mitigation plans not as defensive measures but as evidence of sophisticated project planning and management capabilities that increase confidence in successful project completion.

Narrative construction ability enables grant writers to weave complex technical information into compelling stories that engage reviewers emotionally while maintaining scientific rigor and credibility (Heath & Heath, 2007). This capability involves understanding how humans process information, what types of narratives are most persuasive in scientific contexts, and how to structure arguments that build logically toward compelling conclusions. Effective narrative construction requires balancing technical detail with accessibility, specificity with broader significance, and innovation with feasibility in ways that create coherent and persuasive proposal documents.

Adaptive planning capability allows grant writers to develop flexible research strategies that can accommodate uncertainty while maintaining clear objectives and measurable outcomes (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). This involves creating research plans that are specific enough to demonstrate feasibility but flexible enough to accommodate unexpected discoveries, methodological challenges, or changing research landscapes. Strategic grant writers understand that funding agencies want evidence of both careful planning and adaptive capacity that will enable successful project completion even when initial assumptions prove incorrect.

4. Competitive Intelligence and Environmental Analysis

Strategic grant writing requires developing sophisticated capabilities for gathering, analyzing, and acting upon competitive intelligence about funding landscapes, reviewer preferences, and successful proposal characteristics. This environmental analysis function enables grant writers to make informed strategic decisions about where to apply, how to position their research, and what arguments are most likely to resonate with specific funding programs (Fahey & Narayanan, 1986).

Funding landscape analysis involves systematically monitoring funding opportunities, success rates, review criteria, and programmatic priorities across multiple agencies and programs to identify optimal strategic positioning opportunities (Creswell, 2013). Successful grant writers develop ongoing intelligence gathering processes that track changes in funding priorities, emerging program opportunities, and shifts in review emphasis that might affect their competitive positioning. This analysis extends beyond simply reading funding announcements to include monitoring funded project databases, analyzing reviewer feedback patterns, and understanding broader policy trends that influence funding decisions.

Competitor analysis enables grant writers to understand the strengths and positioning strategies of other researchers competing for similar funding, allowing for strategic differentiation and competitive advantage development (Porter, 1980). This involves analyzing previously funded projects in relevant areas, understanding the research trajectories and capabilities of potential competitors, and identifying unique value propositions that distinguish specific research approaches from alternatives. Strategic grant writers use competitor analysis not to copy successful approaches but to identify opportunities for differentiation and positioning that highlight their unique contributions and capabilities.

Reviewer psychology analysis represents a sophisticated form of environmental intelligence that enables grant writers to anticipate how their proposals will be evaluated and received by peer review panels (Marsh et al., 2008). This involves understanding the cognitive biases, professional backgrounds, evaluation heuristics, and decision-making processes that influence reviewer behavior. Strategic grant writers develop mental models of typical reviewer concerns, preferences, and evaluation approaches that guide proposal development decisions about technical detail levels, argument structures, and risk presentation strategies.

Institutional capability assessment enables grant writers to accurately evaluate their competitive advantages and limitations relative to proposal requirements and competitor capabilities (Barney, 1991). This involves honest analysis of research infrastructure, personnel capabilities, institutional support systems, and track record factors that affect proposal competitiveness. Strategic grant writers use this assessment to identify proposals where they have genuine competitive advantages while avoiding opportunities where institutional limitations would compromise their competitiveness regardless of research quality.

Timing and opportunity identification represents another crucial environmental analysis capability that enables grant writers to recognize optimal moments for specific types of proposals based on funding cycles, policy priorities, and field developments (Ansoff, 1987). Strategic grant writers understand that proposal success often depends not just on research quality but on alignment with funding agency priorities, reviewer composition, and broader scientific momentum around particular research areas.

5. Cognitive Frameworks for Proposal Development

Effective grant writers employ sophisticated cognitive frameworks that guide proposal development from initial conception through final submission. These frameworks provide structured approaches to managing the complexity of grant writing while ensuring comprehensive coverage of evaluation criteria and stakeholder concerns.

The value proposition framework enables grant writers to clearly articulate the unique benefits and significance of their proposed research relative to alternatives and competing priorities (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005). This framework requires identifying and communicating the specific problems their research addresses, the limitations of existing approaches, the advantages of their proposed methods, and the potential impacts of successful project completion. Strategic grant writers develop compelling value propositions that resonate with multiple stakeholder groups while highlighting their unique capabilities and contributions.

The evidence hierarchy framework guides decisions about what types of supporting evidence to include and how to structure arguments for maximum persuasive impact (Sackett et al., 2000). This involves understanding how different types of evidence are weighted by reviewers in specific fields, what levels of detail are appropriate for different claims, and how to sequence arguments to build credibility progressively throughout the proposal. Strategic grant writers understand that evidence presentation is not just about accuracy but about creating persuasive logical structures that guide reviewers toward favorable conclusions.

The risk-benefit analysis framework enables systematic evaluation of proposal elements from reviewer perspectives, helping writers anticipate concerns and develop appropriate responses (Kaplan & Garrick, 1981). This framework involves identifying potential reviewer objections, assessing the likelihood and severity of different concerns, and developing specific strategies for addressing high-priority risks while maintaining proposal strength and credibility. Strategic grant writers use this framework not just for defensive purposes but to identify opportunities for highlighting project strengths and competitive advantages.

The stakeholder alignment framework guides decisions about how to position research objectives and outcomes to appeal to different evaluation audiences simultaneously (Freeman et al., 2010). This involves understanding the potentially different priorities of program officers, peer reviewers, institutional administrators, and broader societal stakeholders, then crafting proposal narratives that address these diverse interests while maintaining coherent research focus. Strategic grant writers develop capability for multi-stakeholder communication that demonstrates research value across different evaluation criteria and perspective.

The iterative refinement framework provides structured approaches to proposal improvement through multiple development cycles that incorporate feedback, competitive analysis, and strategic repositioning (Ries, 2011). This framework emphasizes the importance of treating proposal development as an iterative process where initial ideas are tested, refined, and repositioned based on feedback and analysis rather than linear writing processes that proceed from outline to final draft. Strategic grant writers understand that successful proposals typically require multiple development cycles with substantial revisions based on strategic analysis and stakeholder feedback.

6. Psychological Resilience and Adaptive Capacity

The competitive funding environment creates significant psychological challenges that require developing resilience and adaptive capacity to maintain effectiveness over extended periods of grant writing and review cycles. Understanding and managing these psychological dimensions represents a crucial but often overlooked component of strategic grant writing success.

Rejection resilience involves developing cognitive frameworks that enable learning from unsuccessful funding attempts while maintaining motivation and confidence for future applications (Dweck, 2006). Strategic grant writers understand that rejection is an inherent part of the competitive funding process and develop psychological strategies for extracting learning value from unsuccessful applications while avoiding the discouragement that can undermine future performance. This resilience involves reframing rejection as information rather than judgment, focusing on controllable factors rather than external circumstances, and maintaining long-term strategic perspectives despite short-term setbacks.

Uncertainty tolerance enables grant writers to function effectively in ambiguous environments where funding criteria, reviewer preferences, and competitive dynamics are constantly evolving (Budner, 1962). Strategic grant writers develop comfort with ambiguity that allows them to make reasonable strategic decisions based on incomplete information while remaining flexible enough to adapt when new information becomes available. This psychological capability is essential for managing the inherent uncertainties in research planning, reviewer psychology, and funding agency priorities that characterize competitive grant environments.

Strategic patience involves balancing the need for immediate funding success with long-term career development and research program building (Collins & Porras, 1994). Strategic grant writers understand that building competitive research programs often requires sustained effort over multiple funding cycles, with early applications serving important developmental functions even when they are unsuccessful. This perspective enables strategic decision-making about when to pursue high-risk opportunities versus safer alternatives, when to invest in capacity building versus immediate applications, and how to sequence funding attempts for maximum cumulative impact.

Learning orientation enables grant writers to continuously improve their strategic thinking and proposal development capabilities through systematic reflection on both successful and unsuccessful funding attempts (Senge, 1990). Strategic grant writers develop structured approaches to analyzing their proposal development processes, reviewer feedback, and competitive outcomes to identify specific areas for improvement. This learning orientation involves seeking feedback from multiple sources, experimenting with different strategic approaches, and maintaining detailed records of what works and what doesn’t work in different funding contexts.

Collaborative mindset recognition involves understanding when individual grant writing efforts should be supplemented or replaced by collaborative strategies that leverage complementary capabilities and shared resources (Austin, 2003). Strategic grant writers develop awareness of their own limitations and the potential benefits of collaboration while also understanding when collaborative approaches might compromise their strategic positioning or dilute their unique value propositions.

7. Training and Development Implications

The complex cognitive and strategic requirements of effective grant writing suggest that traditional training approaches focused primarily on technical writing skills and formatting requirements are insufficient for developing the sophisticated mindset capabilities that enable funding success. Evidence-based training and development programs must address the cognitive, strategic, and psychological dimensions of grant writing competency.

Cognitive skill development programs should focus on building the specific mental capabilities that enable strategic thinking in grant writing contexts (Ericsson et al., 1993). This includes training in systems thinking, stakeholder analysis, risk assessment, and strategic planning that goes beyond general critical thinking skills to address the specific cognitive challenges of competitive funding environments. Effective training programs should include simulation exercises, case study analysis, and deliberate practice activities that allow participants to develop and refine these cognitive capabilities in realistic grant writing contexts.

Mentorship programs represent crucial development mechanisms that enable transmission of tacit knowledge about strategic grant writing that cannot be easily codified in formal training materials (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Effective mentorship relationships provide opportunities for novice grant writers to observe and participate in strategic thinking processes, receive feedback on their developing capabilities, and gradually assume increasing responsibility for complex proposal development tasks. Strategic mentorship programs should pair participants with mentors who have demonstrated success in relevant funding areas while also providing structured frameworks for knowledge transfer and skill development.

Reflective practice training enables grant writers to develop systematic approaches to learning from their own experience while building meta-cognitive awareness of their strategic thinking processes (Schön, 1983). This training should include techniques for analyzing proposal development decisions, reviewer feedback interpretation, and strategic positioning effectiveness that enable continuous improvement in grant writing capabilities. Reflective practice training should also address the psychological challenges of competitive funding environments and provide strategies for maintaining motivation and learning orientation despite inevitable setbacks.

Collaborative learning environments create opportunities for grant writers to share strategic insights, analyze successful proposals, and develop collective intelligence about effective approaches to competitive funding (Wenger, 1998). These learning communities can take various forms, including proposal development workshops, peer review groups, strategic planning sessions, and online knowledge sharing platforms. Effective collaborative learning environments should balance information sharing with competitive considerations while providing safe spaces for discussing failures and strategic mistakes that offer valuable learning opportunities.

Institutional support systems should be designed to provide the resources, incentives, and structural supports that enable researchers to develop and apply strategic grant writing capabilities effectively (Clark, 1998). This includes providing adequate time and resources for proposal development, creating incentive structures that reward strategic thinking and learning rather than just funding success, and developing institutional capabilities for competitive intelligence gathering and strategic planning support.

8. Future Directions and Implications

The evolving landscape of research funding presents both opportunities and challenges for developing and applying strategic thinking in grant writing. Understanding emerging trends and their implications for grant writer mindset development is essential for maintaining competitiveness in future funding environments.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies are beginning to influence grant writing processes through automated screening systems, natural language processing of proposals, and data-driven analysis of funding patterns (Russell & Norvig, 2016). Strategic grant writers must develop understanding of how these technologies affect evaluation processes while also leveraging AI tools for competitive intelligence gathering, proposal optimization, and strategic analysis. The integration of AI into grant writing processes requires developing new cognitive capabilities for human-AI collaboration while maintaining the essentially human elements of creativity, strategic thinking, and stakeholder relationship management.

Interdisciplinary research funding is becoming increasingly important as scientific challenges require integration across traditional disciplinary boundaries (Klein, 2010). This trend requires grant writers to develop more sophisticated systems thinking capabilities, broader stakeholder analysis skills, and enhanced collaboration management competencies. Strategic grant writers must learn to navigate the additional complexity of interdisciplinary review processes while positioning their work effectively for reviewers from multiple disciplinary backgrounds.

Global research collaboration and international funding opportunities are expanding the competitive landscape beyond traditional national funding systems (Wagner, 2008). Strategic grant writers must develop understanding of international research priorities, cultural differences in evaluation approaches, and complex regulatory environments that govern international collaboration. This globalization of research funding requires enhanced cultural competency, regulatory knowledge, and strategic thinking about positioning research for international audiences and evaluation criteria.

Open science and transparency initiatives are changing expectations about data sharing, reproducibility, and public engagement that affect strategic positioning and proposal development (Nosek et al., 2015). Strategic grant writers must integrate these evolving expectations into their proposal development frameworks while understanding how open science practices can be leveraged for competitive advantage and stakeholder engagement.

The emphasis on societal impact and translational research is increasing across funding agencies, requiring grant writers to develop stronger capabilities for communicating research value to non-academic audiences and connecting research outcomes to broader societal benefits (Holbrook & Frodeman, 2011). This trend requires enhanced stakeholder analysis capabilities, improved narrative construction skills, and deeper understanding of how research connects to policy and practice domains.

9. Conclusion

The grant writer’s mindset represents a sophisticated constellation of cognitive capabilities, strategic frameworks, and psychological competencies that enable success in increasingly competitive funding environments. This research has identified the core components of strategic thinking in grant writing, including stakeholder analysis, systems thinking, risk assessment, narrative construction, and adaptive planning capabilities that distinguish successful practitioners in contemporary funding landscapes.

The development of strategic grant writing capabilities requires moving beyond traditional approaches focused primarily on technical writing skills toward comprehensive training programs that address cognitive skill development, strategic thinking frameworks, and psychological resilience building. Effective development programs must integrate insights from cognitive psychology, strategic management theory, and behavioral economics to address the full complexity of competitive funding environments.

The implications of this research extend beyond individual grant writer success to encompass broader questions about how research communities can optimize their collective capabilities for securing funding and advancing scientific knowledge. When researchers develop sophisticated strategic thinking capabilities, they can more effectively communicate the value and significance of their work, leading to better funding decisions and enhanced research outcomes that benefit both scientific progress and societal welfare.

Future research should continue to examine the effectiveness of different training approaches, the role of institutional support systems in enabling strategic grant writing success, and the impact of emerging technologies on grant writing processes and requirements. Additionally, longitudinal studies examining the relationship between strategic thinking capabilities and long-term research career success will be essential for validating the importance of mindset development in academic and research contexts.

The scientific community’s commitment to excellence should extend to the strategic thinking capabilities that enable researchers to secure funding for their important work. By understanding and developing the grant writer’s mindset, researchers can enhance their ability to translate excellent science into compelling proposals that attract funding support and advance human knowledge. This strategic approach to grant writing represents not just a professional skill but a scientific imperative to maximize the societal benefits of research investment through effective communication and strategic positioning of research value and significance.

The cultivation of strategic thinking in grant writing ultimately serves the broader goals of scientific advancement and societal benefit by ensuring that excellent research ideas receive the funding support necessary for implementation and impact. As funding competition continues to intensify, the development of sophisticated grant writing mindsets becomes increasingly critical for maintaining the vitality and progress of the research enterprise.

References

Ansoff, H. I. (1987). Corporate strategy: Business policy for growth and expansion. Penguin Books.

Austin, A. E. (2003). Creating a bridge to the future: Preparing new faculty to face changing expectations in a shifting context. The Review of Higher Education, 26(2), 119-144.

Azoulay, P., Graff Zivin, J. S., Li, D., & Sampat, B. N. (2019). Public R&D investments and private-sector patenting: Evidence from NIH funding rules. The Review of Economic Studies, 86(1), 117-152.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.

Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30(1), 29-50.

Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. IAU Press.

Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. HarperBusiness.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406.

Fahey, L., & Narayanan, V. K. (1986). Macroenvironmental analysis for strategic management. West Publishing Company.

Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press.

Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2007). Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and others die. Random House.

Holbrook, J. B., & Frodeman, R. (2011). Peer review and the ex ante assessment of societal impacts. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 239-246.

Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2011). The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9-10), 1168-1177.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kaplan, S., & Garrick, B. J. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1(1), 11-27.

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy: How to create uncontested market space and make competition irrelevant. Harvard Business Review Press.

Klein, J. T. (2010). Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures: A model for strength and sustainability. Jossey-Bass.

Locke, E. A., Smith, K. G., Erez, M., Chah, D. O., & Schaffer, A. (2008). The effects of intra-individual goal conflict on performance. Journal of Management, 20(1), 67-91.

Marsh, H. W., Jayasinghe, U. W., & Bond, N. W. (2008). Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist, 63(3), 160-168.

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.

Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., … & Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422-1425.

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.

Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61-78.

Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business.

Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2016). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Pearson.

Sackett, D. L., Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. B. (2000). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.

Wagner, C. S. (2008). The new invisible college: Science for development. Brookings Institution Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.