About

The American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation (ASHFoundation) invites investigators to submit proposals in competition for up to four research grants of $35,000 for each partnership. The Researcher-Practitioner Collaboration Grant supports partnerships between academic or organizational researchers and clinical practitioners to conduct collaborative studies designed to enhance evidence for improving communication sciences and disorders (CSD) services. The funding can be applied to one- or two-year studies.

Applying evidence to enhance assessment and treatment practices for addressing the needs of individuals with communication disorders is critical in health care and educational settings. The ASHFoundation recognizes the value of strong collaborations between academic or organizational researchers and clinical practitioners to accelerate evidence-based practices. The goal of this grant is to encourage collaborative research that will be conducted in practice settings with the explicit aim of increasing knowledge that will improve services to individuals with communication disorders.

Proposed studies must address a clinical problem/question that has direct application and is compatible to practice. This grant is designed to support preliminary research that will lead to a larger-scale study. The collaborative effort is central to this unique funding opportunity.

In 2018, the ASHFoundation presented an introductory webinar for potential investigators to learn more about the specific requirements and application process for this new research grant. View the presentation slides [PDF], and frequently asked questions [PDF].

Note for 2026: In preparation for the grant submission and review processes, the ASHFoundation requests that potential investigators complete an Intent to Submit Form by March 4 to provide information regarding their proposed studies. When investigators log in to the online submission system, they will be prompted to complete the Intent to Submit Form. This step must be completed before proceeding to the proposal submission process.

Who Should Apply

Investigators/collaborators include the following:

  • Academic or organizational researchers who can demonstrate how the proposed research contributes to their program of research, both in content and future funding possibilities.
  • Clinical practitioners who can demonstrate experience with and access to the clinical population and the proposed research. Practitioners must demonstrate organizational support and appropriate leadership roles to allow for participation in the research.

Both the researcher and practitioner must be able to articulate their commitment to the research topic, describe their role in the collaboration process, and demonstrate that they have adequate time for participation.

Research Focus

Studies should have significant importance for clinical practice, as well as the discipline, and be aimed toward improving services to children or adults with communication disorders. For all studies, the research focus must be of significance to both the researcher and practitioner, and reflect their mutual areas of expertise. Research questions may originate in the following ways:

  1. Researcher-driven research: This type of research will be an extension of efficacy findings that are being translated into practice. The collaboration will be to investigate the process of implementing a proven protocol into practice. The research question and methodology will typically explore identification and resolution of challenges to implementing and sustaining an evidence-based protocol into practice.
  2. Practitioner-driven research (practice-based research): This type of research will answer questions of significance to practice, including studies about practice needs, practice conventions (predispositions), or practice outcomes. Studies can be retrospective (examining existing practice-based data) or prospective (collecting new practice-based data). These research questions will typically address practice needs, monitor service delivery trends, or document outcomes.

Eligibility

Investigators must meet the following criteria to be eligible for the Researcher-Practitioner Collaboration Grant.

  1. The researcher must have received a PhD or equivalent research doctorate in communication sciences and disorders or a related discipline. The researcher should have demonstrated expertise in research design and execution, along with interest in the proposed research topic.
  1. The practitioner must have received a degree in audiology, speech-language pathology or a related field, and be in an environment that encourages and supports research. The practitioner should have demonstrated practical experience with the target population and the proposed research topic.
  1. The researcher and practitioner must demonstrate their experience of working together and their mutual interest around the proposed research topic. They must establish the viability of their professional relationship in the context of their common interest in the research question and the potential for success in their collaboration.
  1. Either the researcher or practitioner must be designated as the principal investigator, but the principal investigator must demonstrate the ability, time and institutional support necessary to successfully conduct the research. The principal investigator will manage the design and implementation of the study, including human subject considerations, budget responsibilities, and personnel supervision.
  1. The proposal submitted to the 2026 Researcher-Practitioner Collaboration Grant competition cannot be submitted to other 2026 ASHFoundation grant competitions. However, the investigators remain eligible to submit to other ASHFoundation grant competitions in the same year, if proposing to investigate a different topic.

Evaluation Criteria

A review panel will evaluate Researcher-Practitioner Collaboration Grant proposals on the following three factors. 

Factor 1: Importance of the Research (Scored 1–9) 

  • Significance: The potential for the study to advance the discipline of communication sciences and disorders and to impact clinical needs relevant to audiology or speech-language pathology. Consideration of the rationale for undertaking the study, the rigor of the scientific background for the work (e.g., prior literature and/or preliminary data) and whether the scientific background justifies the proposed study. 
  • Innovation: The refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, methods, or interventions. The investigator explains how the research is groundbreaking and has potential to impact the discipline. The extent to which innovation influences the importance of undertaking the proposed research. Note that while technical or conceptual innovation can influence the importance of the proposed research, a project that is not applying novel concepts or approaches may be of critical importance for the field. 

Factor 2: Rigor and Feasibility (Scored 1–9) 

  • Approach: The likelihood that compelling, reproducible findings will result (rigor) and whether the proposed studies can be done well and within the timeframes proposed (feasibility). The merits of the design for accomplishing the specific aims of the study and, if applicable, the potential challenges of moving the study toward completion. The appropriateness and feasibility of a detailed account of the method, including measurement and data-analysis plans, will be considered. 

Factor 3: Expertise and Resources (Scored 1–9) 

  • Investigator: The perceived ability to carry out the study in the specified time period, reflected by appropriate training, experience, and past accomplishments. The investigator outlines clear and detailed management and budget plans. 
  • Environment: The extent to which the investigator has access to needed scientific facilities, resources, personnel, and subjects. 

Special Criteria: Collaboration (Scored 1-9) 

  • The collaboration harnesses the respective expertise and commitment of the researcher and practitioner in forming the partnership.  
  • The design of the collaboration clearly delineates the roles and responsibilities toward the mutual goal.  
  • The collaboration plan provides evidence of the interactive communication process throughout the study and specifies activities and timelines.  
  • The collaboration plan acknowledges that a sustainable collaboration includes ongoing assessment and problem-solving.  

Reviewers assign scores on a 1–9 scale for each of the four factors. They will also consider these factors to assign an Overall Impact score, reflecting their assessment of the study’s potential to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved. A proposal does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged to have a major scientific impact. 

The Overall Impact score reflects reviewers' assessment of whether a significant study will be completed competently, be disseminated widely, move the discipline forward, and yield a substantial research program. 

The three factors contribute differentially to the Overall Impact score, corresponding to the goals and funding levels of the grant competition. Researcher-Practitioner Collaboration Grant funds are expected to support the collection of preliminary data that are likely to provide the basis for future research. To ensure competitiveness for the next level of external funding, Factor 1 (Importance of the Research) is most heavily weighted. The proposed approach should frame the study within the larger program of research that will require subsequent funding. Factor 3 (Expertise and Resources) and Collaboration will be considered to determine if there is sufficient strength to compete successfully at the next level of funding. 

Proposal Guidelines

Proposal text should be single-spaced and placed in ONE PDF document containing all required sections in the order indicated. Additional attachments will not be accepted. Please use stated titles (below) as section headers. Font should be 12 point and noncondensed, and margins should be least 1 inch.

  1. Investigators Letter (limit 2 pages)
    Provide a letter of application addressed to the “Grant Review Committee.” Explain briefly why the investigators are pursuing the proposed study, the specific aims of the proposed research, why the study is of clinical importance, why the researcher-practitioner collaboration is valuable to achieve the research aims, and how the research will contribute to the discipline and the science of increasing evidence in practice. Briefly highlight the investigators’ previous collaborative efforts, particularly those resulting in co-authored presentations or publications. Validate that investigators have dedicated research time and commitment from institutions involved to support the study. (Please note that this letter is not intended to be a replication of the detailed investigator biographical sketches.)

Resubmission
If this proposal is a revision of a prior submission to the ASHFoundation, the Investigators Letter must address how the proposal has been revised to respond to the prior set of reviews.

  1. Abstract (limit 1 page)
    Concisely describe the study's focus, specific aims, important aspects of the research approach, and potential contributions to clinical practice and the discipline.
  1. Research Plan (limit 12 pages)

    1. Specific Aims and Significance: Present the problem or issue to be addressed and the specific objectives of the proposed research. Include research questions and/or hypotheses. Provide the rationale for a pilot study in the context of the overall research program. Address the potential impact of the study’s activities on the discipline of communication sciences and disorders and the science of increasing evidence in practice. This section should outline the significance of the clinical need and research gap that exists and the importance of the proposed study in addressing the problem.

    2. Design and Methodology: Provide a description and justification for the study design. Include justifications for participants, data collection procedures, measurement techniques (including as appropriate reliability/credibility and control measures), data reduction and analysis, and evaluation procedures. Address potential challenges that could affect completion of the study. This section should provide enough detail for reviewers to make informed judgments about the soundness of the proposed research procedures.

    3. Facilities and Resources: Describe the facilities, resources, and participants available to the investigators for carrying out the proposed study. Note evidence of past collaborations that support the origin of the proposal, and that will promote the completion of the research study.

  1. References and/or Appendices, as appropriate (limit 6 pages)
  1. Collaboration Plan (limit 2 pages)
    Define the collaborative team and explain its value in addressing the research topic. Describe the rationale for selecting the principal investigator, and the respective roles for the researcher and practitioner. Specify the collaborative effort, including a description of each investigator’s responsibilities and activities related to the research study and their time allotment for research among other assigned duties.
  1. Management Plan (limit 2 pages)
    Describe study activities, timelines, and dissemination plans for research results. The study start date will be December 1, 2026. If applicable, include information about travel required for direct research activity and indicate why it is essential to the investigation. Include a plan for submitting follow-up grant proposals with details about the potential funding agencies, grant mechanisms, and anticipated deadlines. Incorporate ASHFoundation report deadlines into the management timeline.

  2. Budget (limit 2 pages)
    The total budget is $35,000. State the importance of the requested funds to the study’s objectives and indicate how funds will be allocated to specific expense items. Funds will be disbursed to the designated principal investigator.

    Funding will not cover institutional overhead, indirect costs, or travel costs for conventions or meetings. Funding will be disbursed in U.S. currency to investigators in the United States or Canada. There are no other restrictions, but the case must be clear on how the funds are essential to conduct the research in light of other resources or support available to the investigators.

    For specific budget-related questions, contact foundationprograms@asha.org.
  1. Investigators Biographical Sketches (limit 5 pages each)
    The researcher, practitioner, and any participating key personnel must provide NIH-style Biographical Sketches. Researchers should adapt the form to include accomplishments related to the current research topic and how the outcomes of the proposed research will impact the discipline’s knowledge base. Practitioners should adapt the form to describe experience related to the research topic and explain why the research outcomes will be relevant for practice. Biographical Sketches may use either of the following formats:  
    • Biographical Sketch Common Form
      Submit a PDF version of the Biographical Sketch Common Form. Note that the ASHFoundation does not accept biosketch submissions through SciENcv directly. If using the Common Form, investigators must submit their biosketch as a PDF. There is no page limit.
    • Classic NIH Biosketch
      Submit a biosketch following the classic (pre-2026) NIH biosketch format [DOC]. Adapt the form as appropriate for the investigator profile. There is a five-page limit for this format.
  1. IRB Approval
    If the study will use human participants, include the consent form(s) and a copy of the Institutional Review Board’s (IRB) approval.
    If the IRB approval is not available at time of submission, investigators should clearly explain the status of the IRB approval process and send the approval documents to the ASHFoundation (at foundationprograms@asha.org) as soon as IRB approval is granted, but no later than August 31, 2026.

    It is essential to start the IRB approval process early. A lack of IRB determination by August 31, 2026, will automatically disqualify the proposal from funding consideration. The investigator assumes full responsibility for meeting these requirements. 


    Human Subjects (If IRB Approval is not available at time of submission)

    If the IRB approval will not be available until the deadline of August 31, 2026, investigators should provide the following information (limit 3 pages):

    1. Describe the characteristics of the participant population, including the anticipated number, age range, gender, ethnic background, and health status.
    2. Identify sources of research materials in the form of specimens, records, and/or data.
    3. Describe plans for the recruitment of participants and the consent procedures to be followed (include a copy of consent form to be used).
    4. Describe the potential risks to participants (e.g., physical, psychological, social, legal, or other).
    5. Describe the procedures for protecting against or minimizing potential risks to participants, including risks to confidentiality.
    6. Discuss why risks to participants are reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits and to the importance of possible resulting knowledge.
  1. Letters of Institutional Commitment
    Submit letters addressed to the “Grant Review Committee” from the administrators of each investigators’ current employment settings indicating that the proposed study is endorsed and will not present a conflict of interest with their current responsibilities and commitments. If more than one practice setting is involved, letters should be obtained for all sites.
  1. Letters of Support (optional)
    If applicable, provide letters of support from cooperating agencies and key personnel (i.e., other collaborators and consultants) involved in the research study.