Let's talk a bit about graphical abstracts.
What is a graphical abstract? I call it a visual hypothesis or in essence, the model that will be tested in a grant. It can also represent the workflow or how smaller components fit into the big picture.
Elsevier defines it as: "a single, concise, pictorial and visual summary of the main findings of the article. ...captures the content of the article for readers at a single glance."
Now for grants, turn the finding to what it would look like if your hypothesis was correct.
Now for grants, turn the finding to what it would look like if your hypothesis was correct.
A lot of journals are now requiring a graphical abstract. Let's take a look at some of them.
I really like all three examples because even though none come from my field of expertise, just by looking at each I can get an idea of what the paper is about. I have not read a single word of any of the papers but already have a grasp of what the paper will talk about.
Now the same approach can be used for grants. The way I think of a graphical abstract is that its purpose is to communicate the essence of the grant (question, hypothesis) to the reviewers who will not be reading the grant.
I use the figure legend to define terms I use on the figure. The goal is not to describe the minutiae of the experimental approach - the goal is to tell the study section what is the question you will be trying to answer (or hypothesis you are testing).
This is exactly why I prefer to have this on the SA page instead of page 3 of the research strategy. The SS members will not be looking at your page 3 as the discussion is happening - they will be looking at the SA page. They will be scanning that page (quickly).
A graphic will attract their eye. It will keep their attention. It will engage them in a way that a wall of text never will.
I was an art history major in college and learned quickly that people are very visual creatures. Why fight that? Why not leverage that?
But here is a thing: aside from myself, you will rarely meet a research development specialist who makes this suggestion. It goes against the cannon of grant writing. I recognize this. Maybe very few research development specialists were art history majors in college?
But as someone who came into this profession writing grants and papers for other people, it works! And it doesn't have to be perfect! It just has to make sense.
Anyway, it doesn't mean that the other RDSs are wrong or that I am wrong. Just that there are different styles of grant writing. If you have something that work for you - great, stick to it. But if it's not working, it's ok to try something different. Hell, I do it all the time.
*canon
