Five Ingredients for a Perfect Research Funding Bid

Five ingredients for a perfect recipe.
Photo by Calum Lewis on Unsplash

Is there a formula for a successful funding proposal? Not quite, but there are five elements that you should definitely keep in mind when drafting your application. 

The Joy of Six

Life on Quality St: the three speakers in action

The ‘Essential Elements of a Successful Application’ workshop is like the purple one in Quality Street: it’s a perennial favourite. We’ve been running variations on it since we began the Grants Factory in 2009, and there is always a good turnout and a stimulating discussion. I’ve written up some notes from previous sessions here, here, here and here (I could go on). Friday’s iteration was no different.

ECRN: Balancing the Conflicting Demands of Academia

The first Early Career Researcher Network event of this term will take place next Wednesday, 13 January between 1-3pm, and will focus on how to balance the conflicting demands of academia.

Starting off in academia can be difficult. Not only are you trying to establish your research career, but you are having to cope with the new demands of teaching and supervision, as well as understanding what is required of you as a 'good citizen' within your department. Outside of work you may have conflicting demands from family and home.

This session will be led by Prof Sarah Spurgeon (EDA) and Prof Gordon Lynch (SECL), both of whom have had to juggle conflicting demands within their own lives. It will be an opportunity to hear from them, but also to hear from other ECRs across the University, to share your experience, and to offer help and advice to each other.

Lunch will be provided. The event is free and open to all, but places are limited so please let me know if you intend to come along.

Further ECRN events are scheduled for the rest of the term (details to follow).  In addition, the Graduate School provides a comprehensive programme of skills development training. More info here (pdf).

Early Career Researcher Network: 2015-16 Programme Announced

Making links, forming networks

The ECR Network exists to offer mutual support to academics at the beginning of their careers. The sessions below will run in the Spring Term, and complement the Grants Factory workshops and Graduate School research development training programme. There will also be an opportunity to meet others informally and share the highs and lows of getting started in academia; more details on this soon.

I’ll send more detail about these events closer to the time, but do make a note in your diary if you plan to come along. To whet your appetite I've included links below to notes I took when any of these sessions have been run previously. 

Essential Elements of a Good Application

Prof Mick Tuite began last week's Grants Factory session by outlining the essential elements of a good application. From his experience with the BBSRC, it was clear that getting a 'good' grade was not enough. Whilst in theory your proposal might be 'fundable', in reality you need to be graded either 'excellent' or 'exceptional' to be in with a chance. The same is true of all the Research Councils, and most other funders: only those in the top 10% have a realistic chance of success.

For Mick, in order to put yourself in this bracket your proposal needs to demonstrate five essential elements:

• it needs to ask an important question; 
• it needs to offer a potential solution; 
• it needs to be cost effective;
• it needs to bring together the right team;
• it needs to have a clear impact. 

Importance, success, value, competence, impact. These five essential elements are key, and Mick highlighted The Research Funding Toolkit, in which Prof Andrew Derrington and Jacqueline Aldridge had developed these concepts further. However, it is also important to structure your application so it brings these to the fore. The panellists and reviewers need to be excited by the proposal, and convinced that there is both the need for the research and a viable solution to it.

In order to do this, applicants need to understand the difference between four key terms, and use them appropriately, structuring the 'narrative' of the proposal around them.

• Aim: this is what you hope your project will achieve; 
• Objectives: these are what need to be achieved in order to achieve the aim; 
• Outputs: these are the 'deliverables' of the project; 
• Outcomes: these are the final achievements from the project. 

At the heart of the application is the Case for Support. (CfS). It is here that the applicant is given the space to set out the five essential elements.

• The opening lines (5%) - like the lay summary - are crucial to this. Within the first two sentences the reader should understand the question, why it's important and how it will deliver a 'step change' in the discipline. This is not the moment to be a shrinking violet; this should not be a 'slow build'. It's the time to offer an accessible, simple message that conveys both the excitement and the timeliness of the project. 
• The background (30%): this summarises what is known and what is not known about the subject. Just as important, it's the opportunity to set out what we must now, why we must know it now, and why you, as the principal investigator, are the person to discover it. However, whilst you should demonstrate an understanding of the literature, you should avoid self-citation. There is more and more expectation that preliminary data or pilot work has already been done, and this is your chance to make clear what has already been achieved. 
• Aims & objectives (5%): Realistically, you shouldn't have any more than one aim and five objectives. Any more and things become a little confused. There should be a logical flow between them, and you should avoid interdependency, which could act as a potential weakness. 
• Work plan or methodology (50%): this is the most crucial part of the CfS: what are you actually going to do? How are you going to achieve the objectives? The methodology should be 'appropriate' to the goals, and you should offer sufficient (but not overwhelming) technical detail. Your work plan should be clearly set out, and achieve that difficult balancing act of being both ambitious and realistic. 
• Management, dissemination etc (10%): important, but not crucial. These need to make sense, and be appropriate, matching the scale and ambition of the project. 

As well as this, you can help your case in two ways:

• firstly, presentation. Use a simple font, of at least 12pt, and don't overcrowd the margins or paragraph breaks. Break up the text, if possible, with images and diagrams. Proof read the application, and show it to others to do likewise. 
• secondly, make sure you're known. Get out there. Go to conferences. Give papers, lead seminars. Get involved. Whilst applications from unknowns are funded, there is an inherent nervousness amongst panel members if you're an unknown quantity. Reassure with familiarity. 

After a short break for lunch, Mick was joined by three other academics with extensive experience of reviewing and ranking proposals: Prof Simon Thompson has had experience with the EPSRC; Prof Gordon Lynch with the AHRC; and Prof Sarah Vickerstaff with the ESRC.

Simon began by stressing the importance of the opening sentence. The panel 'want to be convinced'. One way that he had found of doing this was beginning the process of drafting an application by putting together a one page summary. This offered the bare bones of the project, but gave peer reviewers an opportunity to give advice when there was still the chance to make substantive changes. When a full application has been drafted, this chance is lost.

He noted a significant difference between the BBSRC and the EPSRC: whereas the BBSRC panel reads the full applications and can have a view on what is proposed, EPSRC panellists should only be 'moderating the reviews'. In other words, they should be basing their decisions on the referees comments, and shouldn't be re-reviewing the application.

The rest of the session became more of a discussion between the panel and the audience, with the former responding to questions from the former, and chipping in with additional thoughts on the idiosyncrasies of different funders. Issues raised included:

• striking the right balance between being overambitious and incremental; 
• that a knowledgable reviewer who can convincingly show that the work has been done before is 'the kiss of death' at ESRC panels; 
• that, whilst Research Councils don't negotiate over elements of the project, they can set conditions which need to be met (such better ethical oversight); 
• the need for collaborators, if you don't have sufficient experience in certain areas that are crucial to the successful completion of the project; 
• the 'increasing importance' of management committees or advisory groups; 
• large projects: there is an inherent conservancy amongst reviewers, and you need to make a strong case if you are asking for more than one RA for three years; 
• the importance of methodology, and the right terminology, in the Case for Support.

This session was the first of the 'Writing Group' programme. This will offer applicants an opportunity to take time out from teaching and administrative duties to work on their applications with support from experienced mentors and Funding Officers, as well as feedback from other applicants. If you want to take part in these, drop me a line. Mick's slides from the session will be available on the Research Services website shortly; thanks to all four panellists for their time, their openness and their humour in sharing their thoughts.

Essential Elements of a Good Application

Grants Factory

Essential Elements of a Good Application

30 October, 12-2pm

Keynes Seminar Room 23

Everyone’s research is different, but successful funding proposals share a number of common elements. Mastering these is essential if your application is going to get the consideration it deserves, no matter how good your underlying research idea is.

The next Grants Factory session will look at these, and will provide insights into how to get them right. The speakers come from very different disciplines, but it is their diverse backgrounds which is their strength: it shows that, whether you’re applying to the AHRC or the BBSRC, the EPSRC or the ESRC, you need to understand the basics.

Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences, with experience of BBSRC, Wellcome and Levehulme) will start by providing an overview of these ‘essential elements’, before being joined by colleagues for a panel discussion to look at the specifics expectations of different funders. Those taking part include Prof Sarah Vickerstaff (SSPSSR, with experience of the ESRC), Prof Simon Thompson (Computing, with experience of EPSRC) and Prof Gordon Lynch (SECL, with experience of AHRC). They will be very open to questions; if you have something specific you want them to address it would be useful if you could let me know beforehand.

Following this session, these four (and other colleagues) will be offering Writing Group sessions, to help, support, mentor and motivate staff in preparing successful proposals. These will be split into four broad areas:

·         The Arts & Humanities

·         The Social Sciences

·         Life & Health Sciences

·         ICT, Maths & Physical Sciences.

More detail on the dates and format for these will be circulated by the Faculty Funding Officers in due course, but if you would like to come along to either the Essential Elements session, or the Writing Groups, do let me know.

All the sessions are free and open to all staff, and lunch will be provided on 30 October.

Balancing the Conflicting Demands of Academia

The final Early Career Research Network meeting of the year focused on how to balance the conflicting demands of academia. The fact that the room was full suggested that this was something that was close to the heart of many starting out. However, the speakers, Profs Gordon Lynch and Sarah Spurgeon, made it clear that the issue doesn't disappear with seniority; like parenthood the challenges and demands change, but they never go away.

In the first part of the session, participants talked together in small groups about the main tensions in juggling different parts of their jobs. When these were fed back it was clear that there were a number of common themes: balancing immediate and pressing deadlines with long term research work; frustrations with unnecessary and inefficient administration; unrealistic demands of some students; knowing your limits and knowing when (and how) to say 'no'.

'There's no simple algorithm for dealing with these,' confessed Sarah, and the rest of the session was an opportunity to share strategies for coping. Not all of these would work for everybody, but achieving a successful balance is about working out which of them would work for you.

• Try to work out which pressures are individual, and which are the result of the structure or institution within which you work. Having recognised this distinction, consider what can be done about them. You will have more control over the individual pressures (see the next point), but sometimes you can facilitate collective change if enough people suffer from the same pressures and are able and willing to work differently.
• Work out which of your tasks are essential and which desirable, and concentrate on the first.
• Get a sense of perspective: how much work do others have? If they have less, are their tasks more consuming? If everyone's pressured, is there any possibility of working more intelligently, or sharing workloads? (see the first point).
• Try to double up tasks, especially between research and teaching. For example, if your research project requires a literature review and you have some control over your teaching programme, try and include an element  that would require you to undertake a literature review to inform your teaching.
• Create email-free periods of work time. Modern technology has made periods of intense concentration increasingly difficult to find. By carving out a period each week which colleagues and students know as a period when you won't respond to emails, you can regain time for proper thought.
• Look for external funding to buy out your time to do things that you want to do. 
• Think more strategically about managing your time. For instance, if you want to keep weekends sacrosanct, you might have to sacrifice weekday evenings to keep on top of work.
• Have a broad career strategy, which is important to you but is informed by local, national, and international contexts.There will be times when it might make sense to go part time. Accept them, and recognise them as temporary and transitory.
• Have a plan which has many strands. Don't rely on a single strand of research, which might depend on a single grant, but consider what other options, what other interests you have, and be prepared to change between them as your life changes.
• Set realistic goals over different time scales and review them regularly.
• Get help from the right people. Having supportive mentors and colleagues is invaluable.

Sarah concluded by saying that ‘most importantly, it is difficult to get this right and, in my view, however glittering the careers of others may appear to us, I firmly believe nobody achieves the perfect balance all the time.’

ECR Network: Balancing the Conflicting Demands of Academia

The final Early Career Researcher Network event of the year will take place next Wednesday, 5 June between 12-2pm, and will focus on how to balance the conflicting demands of academia.

Starting off in academia can be difficult. Not only are you trying to establish your research career, but you are having to cope with the new demands of teaching and supervision, as well as understanding what is required of you as a ‘good citizen’ within your department. Outside of work you may have conflicting demands from family and home.

This session will be led by Prof Sarah Spurgeon (EDA) and Prof Gordon Lynch (SECL), both of whom have had to juggle conflicting demands within their own lives. It will be an opportunity to hear from them, but also to hear from other ECRs across the University, to share your experience, and to offer help and advice to each other.

Lunch will be provided. The event is free and open to all, but please let me know if you intend to come along so that I can arrange catering. 

Notes from Grants Factory: 'Identifying an Idea'

Prof Sally Sheldon and Prof Gordon Lynch led the third Grants Factory session on Wednesday, which focused on how to identify an idea for your funding proposal.

People often think that identifying an idea is a ‘lightbulb moment,’ suggested Prof Sheldon, but it was more like a slow process of development, which slowly brought an idea to fruition. Getting feedback was the key, and applicants needed to share their proposals with as many people as possible, crafting and developing them, and thereby making their idea fundable.

She went on to outline some of the elements that made a project fundable:

·         It raised a question which is important, topical or ’sexy’.  Applicants should think about why they are passionate about their subject, and try to distil this enthusiasm in their proposals. Many hardened reviewers and panellists will need persuading that your project is exciting and necessary.

·         It responded to the strategic priorities, focus and interests of the individual funder, as well as the aims of a particular scheme.  The Research Councils need to justify their spending to government, so applicants should make it easy for them by trying to fit their projects with the funder’s story.

·         It was likely to excite both a non-specialist audience and expert referees. People tend to be better at addressing the expert referees, so take some time to practice on non-experts.

·         It was feasible/concrete/credible/deliverable:

o   Plans to deliver the project will need to be realistic: think about timeframe/access to key data and individuals/resources.

o   You must look capable of delivering it (build on your strengths and address any gaps in your experience or expertise with credible plans for training/mentoring/appropriate management structures – or even collaboration).

·         It represented good value for money – which isn’t the same as being cheap.

·         It had the potential to have significant impact, and the plans for achieving this were well integrated within the project.

Prof Lynch then took over, and reiterated the need to balance an exciting idea with a practical plan. He had learnt, he said, from failure: his first grant came after a string of unsuccessful applications. A fundamental misconception had been that the reviewers would give him the benefit of the doubt, once they were fired up with excitement over his idea. No: the timetable, the milestones, the methodology, and the management all had to be watertight.

He continued by listing some issues that weren’t explicitly mentioned in the funders’ guidelines, but were nonetheless essential for success:

·         The model of the ‘lone scholar’ project was rarely funded now, particularly by the Research Councils. It was crucial to build relationships with people internally and externally.

·         It was helpful to have a research profile of which funder is already aware.  Imagine yourself as the reviewer: if there’s an element of the application that is uncertain, reviewers are more likely to be persuaded if you are already a known quantity. This is not to suggest that funders are giving ‘jobs for the boys’, but that background knowledge plays a part in the decision making process.

·         In addition, make sure your online profile is up to date and presents you positively. The panellists and reviewers may well Google you.

·         Steer your application towards/away from certain reviewers. Don’t offend people, for example by not mentioning the foremost scholar in the field.

·         Cite the right people, as they might be sent the application to review.

·         Make sure that your application is classified correctly. It is easy to dismiss the tick box list of subject areas at the end of the application. However, this is crucial, as it is used to decide whom to send your application to.

·         Make grant applications that are appropriate to your career trajectory and funding history. The best research grant isn’t always the largest. A network grant could be crucially helpful to help establish your subfield, to develop international contacts, or to collaborate in the writing of paper.

·         You must have thick skin. If you are rejected, it’s okay to feel sorry for yourself for a day or so, but then pick yourself up and think about how to reuse or recycle your proposal.

·         Applying is a long term process. Be realistic.

With these thoughts in mind, those attending then broke into smaller groups and discussed their ideas for proposals. Prof Lynch had prepared a checklist of issues that applicants should consider, and this was used as the basis for the discussions.

Slides, notes and the checklist from the session are now available on the Grants Factory SharePoint site.

Grants Factory: Identifying an Idea

Grants Factory

Identifying an Idea: What the Funders Want

31 October 2012 2-4pm

Woolf Seminar Room 5

The next Grants Factory session will focus on how to successfully adapt and target your research to fit external funders. This might be a matter of adjusting your focus so that it aligns to the priorities of the Research Councils, or honing your proposal to make it clear that the your work addresses an urgent and important concern. The session will be led by Prof Gordon Lynch (SECL) and Prof Sally Sheldon (KLS), both of whom have had extensive experience in apply to and working for the Research Councils, and of helping colleagues in developing applications.

The event is free for all staff, and refreshments will be provided. However, do let me know if you intend to come along so that I can get a sense of numbers.

Posters and leaflets of this year's programme are now available (see below). Drop me a line if you would like a printable copy emailed to you, or you would like a hard copy sent.