<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Change for Change&#8217;s Sake in Grant Proposals: When in Doubt, Claim Your Program is Innovative</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.seliger.com/2010/05/02/change-for-changes-sake-in-grant-proposals-when-in-doubt-claim-your-program-is-innovative/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.seliger.com/2010/05/02/change-for-changes-sake-in-grant-proposals-when-in-doubt-claim-your-program-is-innovative/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:29:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blaire McPherson</title>
		<link>http://blog.seliger.com/2010/05/02/change-for-changes-sake-in-grant-proposals-when-in-doubt-claim-your-program-is-innovative/comment-page-1/#comment-18874</link>
		<dc:creator>Blaire McPherson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 23:26:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.seliger.com/?p=606#comment-18874</guid>
		<description>Yah, &quot;innovative&quot; is a great adjective, top shelf on our spice rack. But then there&#039;s that other hot flavor, &quot;replicable evidence-based models from national centers&quot;. So I offer this tip: If an RFP uses the phrase &quot;evidence-based&quot; 15 times or more, scrap &quot;innovative&quot;. If it uses &quot;innovative&quot; 15 times, scrap &quot;evidence-based&quot;. If it uses both  15 times in the same 3-page sentence (US Dept of Education?), combine several 500 mg acetaminophen tablets with a jumbo margarita, and let the cat type the prop.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yah, &#8220;innovative&#8221; is a great adjective, top shelf on our spice rack. But then there&#8217;s that other hot flavor, &#8220;replicable evidence-based models from national centers&#8221;. So I offer this tip: If an RFP uses the phrase &#8220;evidence-based&#8221; 15 times or more, scrap &#8220;innovative&#8221;. If it uses &#8220;innovative&#8221; 15 times, scrap &#8220;evidence-based&#8221;. If it uses both  15 times in the same 3-page sentence (US Dept of Education?), combine several 500 mg acetaminophen tablets with a jumbo margarita, and let the cat type the prop.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Federal Naming Conventions, EDA&#8217;s i6 Challenge, and the Future of Innovation</title>
		<link>http://blog.seliger.com/2010/05/02/change-for-changes-sake-in-grant-proposals-when-in-doubt-claim-your-program-is-innovative/comment-page-1/#comment-18651</link>
		<dc:creator>Federal Naming Conventions, EDA&#8217;s i6 Challenge, and the Future of Innovation</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 20:44:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.seliger.com/?p=606#comment-18651</guid>
		<description>[...] &#160;        &#8592; Change for Change&#8217;s Sake in Grant Proposals: When in Doubt, Claim Your Program is Innovative [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &nbsp;        &larr; Change for Change&#8217;s Sake in Grant Proposals: When in Doubt, Claim Your Program is Innovative [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

