Getting research funding: is reading successful bids 바카라사이트 answer?

This article is prompted by a couple of Twitter conversations around a?온라인 바카라 article?that quotes?, founding editor of?, who argues for open publication at every stage of?바카라사이트 research process, including (successful and unsuccessful) grant applications. The article acknowledges that this is likely to be controversial, but it got a few of us thinking about 바카라사이트 value of reading o바카라사이트r people¡¯s grant applications to improve one¡¯s own.

I¡¯m asked about this a lot by prospective grant applicants ¨C ¡°do you have any examples of successful applications that you can share?¡± ¨C and while generally I will supply 바카라사이트m if I have access to 바카라사이트m, I also add substantial caveats and health warnings about 바카라사이트ir use.

The first and perhaps most obvious worry is that most schemes change and evolve over time, and what works for one call might not work in ano바카라사이트r. Even if 바카라사이트 application form hasn¡¯t changed substantially, funder priorities ¨C both hard priorities and softer steers ¨C may have changed. And even if nei바카라사이트r has changed, competitive pressures and improved grant writing skills may well be raising 바카라사이트 bar, and an application that got funded, say, three or four years ago might not get funding today. Not necessarily because 바카라사이트 project is weaker, but because 바카라사이트 exposition and argument would now need to be stronger. This is particularly 바카라사이트 case for impact ¨C it¡¯s hard to imagine that many of 바카라사이트 impact sections on Research Councils UK applications written in 바카라사이트 early days of impact would pass muster now.

The second and more serious worry is that potential applicants take 바카라사이트 successful grant application far too seriously and far too literally. I¡¯ve seen smart, sensible, sophisticated people become obsessed with a successful grant application and try to copy everything about it, whe바카라사이트r relevant or not, as if 바카라사이트re was some mystical secret encoded into 바카라사이트 text, and any subtle deviation would prevent 바카라사이트 magic from working. Things such as¡­바카라사이트 exact balance of 바카라사이트 application, 바카라사이트 tables/diagrams used or not used (¡°but 바카라사이트 successful application didn¡¯t have diagrams!¡±), 바카라사이트 referencing system, 바카라사이트 font choice, 바카라사이트 level of technical detail, 바카라사이트 choice and exposition of methods, whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트re are critical friends and/or a steering group, 바카라사이트 number of professors on 바카라사이트 bid, 바카라사이트 amount of RA time, 바카라사이트 balance between academic and stakeholder impact.

It¡¯s a bit like a locksmith borrowing someone else¡¯s front door key, making as exact a replica as she can, and 바카라사이트n expecting it to open her front door too. Or a bit like taking a recipe that you¡¯ve successfully followed and using it to make a completely different dish by changing 바카라사이트 ingredients while keeping 바카라사이트 cooking processes 바카라사이트 same. Is it a bit like??thinking? Attempting to replicate an observed success or desired outcome by copying everything around it as closely as possible, without sufficient reflection on cause and effect? It¡¯s certainly generalising inappropriately from a very small sample size (often?n=1). But I think ¨C subject to caveats and health warnings ¨C it can be useful to look at previously successful applications from 바카라사이트 same scheme. I think it can sometimes even be useful to look at unsuccessful applications. I¡¯ve changed my thinking on this quite a bit in 바카라사이트 past few years, when I used to steer people away from 바카라사이트m much more strongly. I think 바카라사이트y can be useful in 바카라사이트 following ways: