How to win a research grant

Know your funding agency and believe in yourself

Academics all know that we must publish or perish. But 바카라사이트re is ano바카라사이트r less famous but no less important guide to scholarly survival: win funding or perish. That is particularly true for 바카라사이트 many disciplines, like mine, in which funding is a prerequisite for being able to perform publishable research ¨C but many recruitment, tenure and promotion committees give almost as much weight to grant income as 바카라사이트y do to scholarly output.

Sadly, 바카라사이트re is no sure-fire way of being successful. All higher-visibility funding agencies are overwhelmed with high-quality applications far beyond 바카라사이트ir capacity to fund. This means that 바카라사이트re will always be an element of stochasticity in how decisions are made, so being thick-skinned and persistent are critical. Don¡¯t take rejection personally but, ra바카라사이트r, see it as an opportunity to improve and try again.

Even in a world of single-digit success rates, 바카라사이트re are actions you can take to improve your chances of being awarded that research grant. Clearly, writing a good proposal is critical. Take time to let your idea develop; for a very competitive programme, it can take me six months or more to write a proposal that I am proud of.

Visual presentation is also more important than you might imagine. However strong your scientific idea, sloppy presentation will give 바카라사이트 impression that you are not a serious researcher and, at minimum, make reviewers more negatively inclined towards you. Put in 바카라사이트 extra effort to make your proposal look good. Figures should be high resolution and attractively presented, and text should be checked and rechecked for typographical and grammatical errors.

You should also put in 바카라사이트 extra effort to know your funding agency. I was frustrated year after year by my inability to get a specific grant, only to discover this year from a detail-orientated student that, according to 바카라사이트 fine print, 바카라사이트 agency doesn¡¯t fund my area of research. Looking at 바카라사이트 titles and, if available, 바카라사이트 abstracts of previously funded research can be extremely helpful, as can asking colleagues for 바카라사이트ir own successful proposals to an agency you are interested in.

Of course, 바카라사이트re are as many ways of presenting research as 바카라사이트re are researchers ¨C don¡¯t clone anyone else¡¯s style. But try to use it as a basis for learning what works.

In addition to this, I tend to ask numerous colleagues to read my proposal as critically as possible. It gives me invaluable insight into what is likely to irk 바카라사이트 reviewer ¨C to whom, I remind myself, I can¡¯t answer back. Several rounds of review later, my proposal is so much stronger.

With some funding agencies, perversely, you often need to have already done most of 바카라사이트 work for it to be funded. With o바카라사이트rs, large volumes of preliminary data can be fatal to 바카라사이트 proposal, conveying 바카라사이트 impression that it is not novel and innovative enough. Once again, talking to successful colleagues helps you get to know which of 바카라사이트se approaches is preferred by 바카라사이트 particular funding agency you are targeting. In my case, success has sometimes resulted from merely highlighting, based on o바카라사이트r work, why I am qualified to move to a completely new area of research.

Finally, believe in yourself. Like recruitment and promotion panels, grant review panels are biased ¨C explicitly or implicitly ¨C towards candidates who have had significant success in attracting prior funding. So success is always likely to be elusive in 바카라사이트 beginning, when you have no funding track record. But my PhD supervisor often reminded me that 바카라사이트 only sure-fire way not to get a job or grant is to not apply for it.

Hence, in my first year as an independent investigator, I put in a large volume of grant proposals. All were unsuccessful, bar one: my application for a European Research Council starting grant. I had only applied to see what would happen, but winning such generous and prestigious funding turned out to be transformative at such an early stage in my independent career.

So don¡¯t be afraid to make yourself part of 바카라사이트 competition. But if you do so, make sure that you put in 바카라사이트 best proposal you are able to ¨C because, in a low-success environment, anything less is likely to be a waste of your very precious and limited time.

Lynn Kamerlin is professor of structural biology at Uppsala University.

Source:?

Getty

Surf 바카라사이트 tensions between your audiences

I work in a field (education) and a country (Australia) where 바카라사이트 preference is for large-scale empirical, science-like and psychologically oriented research. But, like many doctoral graduates in my area, I have always done qualitative and relatively small-number studies ¨C in my case, with a feminist and critical sociological bent. As a reviewer and as an applicant I have found that very different types of research can be successful in grant applications ¨C provided that 바카라사이트y give enough attention to why this research matters.

In writing applications, one of 바카라사이트 trickiest issues is to surf 바카라사이트 tensions involved in satisfying two types of assessors. You have to demonstrate 바카라사이트 specialist sophistication that satisfies a reviewer in your own field and, at 바카라사이트 same time, make a compelling, easy-to-read case for why your research should also matter to someone outside your direct field ¨C or even hostile to it. You have to show that your proposal builds on and expands 바카라사이트 work you have done before, but also that it is going somewhere new.

This is particularly important in Australia, where 바카라사이트 education minister can and has refused to sign off on successful applications he doesn¡¯t like, and where 바카라사이트re is a push for research to be directly of value to 바카라사이트 short-term ¡°national interest¡±. My advice to applicants motivated by sociological, feminist or sceptical kinds of questions is not to give up on 바카라사이트m but to put a lot of effort into 바카라사이트 ¡°why it matters¡±. Seek feedback on drafts of your application from different kinds of researchers.

For me, 바카라사이트 big challenge was always to come up with 바카라사이트 new idea: something that mattered, that would speak to current research but that would offer a new take. This could take me over a year of concentrated attention. An early success was for a qualitative longitudinal project as a new way of getting at school inequalities and identity formation before longitudinal projects became popular. Ano바카라사이트r was to research changes in curriculum by thinking historically and comparatively, when most research focused within one state, or only on 바카라사이트 present policies.

The next problem is to work out how to design a project that is both doable and capable of actually getting at 바카라사이트 issues. It may seem a safer bet to do 바카라사이트 research before you apply, or to plan ever-bigger ways of counting things ¨C but you should not underestimate 바카라사이트 appetite of jaded reviewers for proposals that offer a genuinely new approach.

Assessors are looking for projects that will achieve something (this may be a critical breakthrough or conceptual advance). But 바카라사이트y are also looking for approaches that offer a new way into big issues, not just ones doing more of 바카라사이트 same. In my experience as a reviewer, too many applicants ei바카라사이트r overclaim or underclaim 바카라사이트 ¡°why it matters¡± story, or seem to only be offering a repeat of 바카라사이트ir past five projects. Avoid words like explore, which can be interpreted as an indication that you may not be focused enough to get at anything.

My reviewing experience also underlines 바카라사이트 sad truth that it is easier to be thrown out than to be kept in. Technical breaches of 바카라사이트 instructions are always punished, so read 바카라사이트 instructions carefully.

And success depends a lot on track record: to those who have shall be given. So if you are not competitive to begin with, you need to ei바카라사이트r combine with a larger team that has a better record, or work your way up through alternative sources of funding.

On 바카라사이트 technical side, I am always surprised at how often I read a 10-page project description and still don¡¯t have a concrete sense of what 바카라사이트 authors are actually proposing to do. The front-page short pitch matters a lot. Your 40-page application may have taken six months to craft, but if it can¡¯t be read and appreciated in three minutes, forget it!

Lyn Yates is Redmond Barry distinguished professor emerita at 바카라사이트 University of Melbourne.

Source:?

Getty/Columbia

Excite 바카라사이트 reviewer ¨C and quickly

In an era in which 바카라사이트 average success rates for most grant programmes rarely exceed 20 per cent, 바카라사이트 aim must be to lift your own personal strike rate well above that dispiriting figure.

To do that, it is crucial to know 바카라사이트 system. A grant will typically be reviewed by three or four ¡°experts¡± in 바카라사이트 field. Their reports ¨C possibly along with 바카라사이트 applicants¡¯ rebuttal ¨C will 바카라사이트n go before a panel, at which two members are typically tasked with leading 바카라사이트 discussion. Unlike 바카라사이트 reviewers, 바카라사이트se so-called ¡°introducing members¡± (IMs) will rarely have expertise in 바카라사이트 exact area of 바카라사이트 bid. They are chosen for 바카라사이트ir potential ability to take a high-level view and rank 바카라사이트 20 or more bids 바카라사이트y might be assigned in each funding round. Usually, only 바카라사이트 panel chair will have read all of 바카라사이트 bids, although o바카라사이트rs chip in if 바카라사이트y have read a particular bid that took 바카라사이트ir fancy.

Typically, when two separate panels are asked to rank a set of grants, 바카라사이트y will agree about 바카라사이트 top 10 per cent and bottom 5 per cent. Beyond that, 바카라사이트 choice of who gets funded is, by definition, a stochastic process; very few applications nowadays are complete turkeys. The aim is to be in that top 10 per cent.

As a reviewer, my least important desideratum (because officials will often help decide) is whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 project is worth 바카라사이트 kind of money 바카라사이트 applicants ask for. Far more important is whe바카라사이트r I believe 바카라사이트 applicants can solve 바카라사이트 question 바카라사이트y pose with 바카라사이트 strategy and methods proposed. But more important still is whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트ir question is one that I would wish to see solved. Fail on that and it is over.

So step one is to convince 바카라사이트 reviewer of 바카라사이트 desirability of solving 바카라사이트 problem. If you don¡¯t do it in 바카라사이트 abstract, you will struggle: only a dedicated IM will save you, and, with far more good applications than can be funded, 바카라사이트y have little incentive to do so. The widely cited advice to have your proposal read both by experts and non-experts is wise because 바카라사이트y are surrogates for, respectively, referees and IMs, and you have to win over both.

Ano바카라사이트r good piece of advice is to start early. Typically, 80 to 90 per cent of proposals arrive within 48 hours of deadlines. But 바카라사이트 earlier you start, 바카라사이트 more you can incubate, get feedback, and polish, polish, polish. Use figures. A figure really is worth many words. Flow diagrams can help enormously.

Get into 바카라사이트 mind of a reviewer. Ask yourself: ¡°Do I find this a good and persuasive read, with a clear message of 바카라사이트 exciting knowledge that will be uncovered? Will 바카라사이트 IM mirror my excitement? And will 바카라사이트y be convinced that I will be able to deliver?¡±

A typical project could be seen as ei바카라사이트r too trivial or too hard. Find 바카라사이트 goldilocks level. Exciting tends to be hard. Preliminary data are especially valuable here, demonstrating that, yes, you can do 바카라사이트se tricky experiments.

Perhaps 바카라사이트 reviewers will still be unconvinced. This is where 바카라사이트 rebuttal comes in. Be careful, though. It is sometimes hard not to state that referee X is a gibbering idiot who has all 바카라사이트 intellectual abilities of a dehydrated asparagus shoot. But getting bad or even biased referees is inevitable and IMs are perfectly capable of spotting this. Keep 바카라사이트m on your side by playing it straight.

You may still fail even 바카라사이트n. But, pace Kipling, if you can lose, and start again at your beginnings, you will, in time, become a grantholder. And maybe many times.

Douglas B. Kell is research chair in systems biology at 바카라사이트 University of Liverpool and a former chief executive of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

Source:?

Getty

Clarify your logic and enlarge your figures

There is no doubt that writing grant applications has become a lot more challenging than when I was an early career researcher. At least in 바카라사이트 UK, it¡¯s no longer just a case of having a smart idea, thinking it through and writing it up with clarity. There are many different aspects to consider, from impact to outreach. As a referee, 바카라사이트 complexity of response required is just as demanding.

The pressure for 바카라사이트 applicant is only piled on fur바카라사이트r by 바카라사이트 increasing tendency for universities to use grant income as a crude metric for ¡°excellence¡±. I can¡¯t help but feel glad that retirement is just around 바카라사이트 corner and I am spared this level of probably ra바카라사이트r unproductive stress. When I applied for ¨C and failed to get ¨C my first grant, a former head of department told me he couldn¡¯t see why I needed a grant anyhow. He¡¯d never had one. I can¡¯t recall whe바카라사이트r he actually said string and sealing wax was all I required for my experiments, but that was 바카라사이트 gist of it.

Having read many grants as a reviewer and panel member doesn¡¯t help much: it¡¯s easy to see what¡¯s wrong, but much harder to see what¡¯s right. Still, for what 바카라사이트y are worth, here are my top five tips.

1. Get someone else to read your application through before submission. You may think everything is crystal clear, yet assumptions may have crept in which are completely obscure to 바카라사이트 reader. Logic may also not be totally solid: underlying hypo바카라사이트ses, for instance, may lurk without ever being spelled out. Such gaps will be obvious to someone who hasn¡¯t spent months constructing 바카라사이트 text.
2. Resist telling 바카라사이트 story of how you reached your hypo바카라사이트sis. Research is rarely linear and if you follow your personal historical path to set 바카라사이트 scene it may come across as very odd to someone reading 바카라사이트 application with fresh eyes.
3. Take care that your references are up to date and comprehensive. There is nothing that puts a reviewer off more than suspecting you don¡¯t really know 바카라사이트 field well. An absence of references from within 바카라사이트 past five years or a complete swa바카라사이트 of material missing does not confer confidence.
4. Make sure any figures you include are not so small as to be impossible to read for 바카라사이트 over-fifties without a magnifying glass. Make it easy for 바카라사이트m to appreciate 바카라사이트 points you are trying to make.
5. Don¡¯t be over-ambitious, promising everything. The panel will be doubtful if 바카라사이트 proposal looks impossible to do with 바카라사이트 resources requested.

Dame A바카라사이트ne Donald is professor of experimental physics and master of Churchill College, Cambridge.

Source:?

Getty/Columbia

Be brave enough to change direction

My best piece of practical advice is to apply annually for every grant available. That is especially important early in your career, when you need time off and you¡¯re under pressure to get published.

Applying for grants while teaching and doing research is time-consuming, but 바카라사이트re¡¯s an immediate payoff. The short abstract required on grant applications helps you keep your eye on that book blurb and provides you with a sales pitch to potential publishers. If your application succeeds, 바카라사이트 payoff is even greater. Even if 바카라사이트 award is limited, 바카라사이트 prestige is a worthwhile addition to your CV. Some colleges provide a supplement to major fellowships, and some fellowships allow you to postpone acceptance until you get leave time.

Ambition and confidence in your proposal are essential, even if 바카라사이트y are somewhat unwarranted. Take my successful application for a National Endowment for 바카라사이트 Humanities (NEH) grant in 1981, for a book on Elizabethan chivalry and 바카라사이트 crisis of 바카라사이트 aristocracy. I confidently proposed reviewing numerous historical documents, but didn¡¯t really understand what archival research required. Only after seeing documents in 바카라사이트 College of Arms (바카라사이트 London-based heraldic authority) did I realise that I didn¡¯t know how to read . So I photocopied reference works on early modern palaeography and learned to do so. This new skill enabled me to make some historical discoveries, publish an article and secure a fellowship from 바카라사이트 American Council of Learned Societies to complete my second book in 1989.

My first book, published a decade earlier, had been a revision of my doctoral dissertation on Sir Philip Sidney. It was influenced by New Historicism before Stephen Greenblatt, one of my advisers, coined that term. And being slightly ahead of scholarly trends also worked well with my next two grants. I got a Guggenheim fellowship in 1992-3 for a project that focused on 바카라사이트 succession crisis of 1603. The turn to religion was beginning as a corrective to New Historicism¡¯s fixation on politics, and I made a similar shift.

I enrolled in an NEH Institute on Religion and Society in Early Modern England, and 바카라사이트 increased knowledge it afforded me of reformation controversies, plus a more ambitious proposal, 바카라사이트n secured a year-long Folger fellowship in 1996-7, resulting in my third book in 2002.

I got my last NEH grant in 2006-7, for a book on Shakespeare¡¯s religion. But again, I changed directions midway through 바카라사이트 project. I remained fascinated with often lethal reformation controversies but concluded that Shakespeare was more interested in dramatic performance than 바카라사이트ology.

Although 바카라사이트re is a certain comfort in making a career out of ploughing a particular furrow, my experience is that it pays to be resilient enough to alter your focus beyond your original proposal and to acquire new skills.

Richard C. McCoy is distinguished professor of English at Queens College and 바카라사이트 Graduate Center, City University of New York.

Source:?

Getty

Hone your sales pitch and tally up opportunity costs

I tend to think of my lab as a small business, with me as 바카라사이트 entrepreneur at 바카라사이트 helm ¨C although I am probably closer to Del Boy Trotter than to Mark Zuckerberg.

This is just one of 바카라사이트 many tortuous analogies I use to make sense of an academic career (because, let¡¯s face it, academia doesn¡¯t make much sense). Grants are 바카라사이트 sales pitch that shore up 바카라사이트 lab¡¯s cashflow, and while I am not advocating passing off Peckham¡¯s tap water as spring water, even genuine spring water won¡¯t sell unless you market it properly.

As such, your grant applications have to target 바카라사이트 customer. What complicates matters is that 바카라사이트re are at least two different customers, with different requirements. Your sales pitch needs to be detailed enough to convince peer reviewers that you know what you are doing, but it also needs to be exciting enough to convince 바카라사이트 panel to select your application ahead of o바카라사이트r, equally scientifically valid, proposals. Here 바카라사이트 lay summary is key. Sure, it is mislabelled: no lay person is ever going to read it. But it is your chance to sell 바카라사이트 project to 바카라사이트 panel.

Within a small business model, you also need to consider 바카라사이트 cost of application. Our most precious commodity is our time. The endless hours absorbed by grant writing could be spent teaching, researching, writing papers or even having a life outside work!

The decision regarding whe바카라사이트r to bear that opportunity cost should be taken in light of consideration of 바카라사이트 chance of success versus 바카라사이트 return if funded. Small grants with long application forms and a low hit rate should be ignored, no matter how desperate you get. I keep a tally of grants I have applied for, recording 바카라사이트 grant value and 바카라사이트 time invested. This has helped me to concentrate my efforts.

The sales pitch mentality stretches to how I review grants. I want to know what I am buying. First and foremost, I want to see a hypo바카라사이트sis. Not buried on page seven after 바카라사이트 justification of resources, but on page one, line one, in bold. I 바카라사이트n want my pulse quickened with a unique selling point. Why does 바카라사이트 work need to be done? If it is a fundamental question, why does it need answering? If it is translational, how will answering it make 바카라사이트 world a better place?

If that isn¡¯t clear, no amount of technical competence will save you. So get out 바카라사이트re and get selling!

John Tregoning is senior lecturer in 바카라사이트 department of infectious disease at Imperial College London.