 |
Kent's Essential Elements. If only we could bottle it.
And put a Clown Fish on the label. |
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 speakers for last week’s
Grants Factory session came from very different disciplines, but it was their
diverse backgrounds which was their strength: it showed that, whether you’re
applying to the AHRC or the BBSRC, you need to understand these key elements.
Paul Allain is Professor of
Theatre and Performance in the School of Arts, and
Mick
Tuite is Professor of Molecular Biology in the
School of Biosciences.
For Mick, there are three elements that make a project
fundable:
·
Firstly, it must ask an important question;
·
Secondly, it must offer a realistic chance of a
solution within the time;
·
Finally, it must be run by someone who knows
what they’re doing.
Demonstrating these three elements should be the main aim of
your proposal. The application itself is
a complex patchwork of sections, but all of these must tie together to achieve
this aim.
·
Lay
Summary: this is the key to the proposal. It gets the reviewer and panel
interested enough to read on. It should make the case, in a few paragraphs, as
to why your project is exciting, timely and crucial, what you’re going to do,
and why you’re the person to do it.
·
Background:
don’t spend too long on this, but make it clear that you understand the
context, and show – once again – why you’re well placed to undertake the
research. However, avoid too much self-citation, but do disclose preliminary
data or analyses.
·
Aims
& Objectives: ideally, there shouldn’t be more than five, and that
there’s a logical flow between them. Give a sense of timelines, of what you’re
going to do when.
·
Work
Plan: the idea of ‘work packages’ is becoming more common. Each of these
should have its own aim and outcome, and there should be sufficient detail in
each for the reviewer to be able to judge the work. Don’t be shy about
highlighting what is innovative or ground breaking. Be ambitious but realistic.
Paul took over to look at the essential language of the
application. He made the analogy of seeing a bank manager. You don’t need to
justify why you need a house, but you do need to show that you can handle it,
that you’re the one, and you’ve got a good ‘investment’. ‘It’s the language of
money’, but your proposal should also ‘tell a story’ with a clear and
compelling narrative.
The nuts and bolts that hold this narrative together should
include:
·
A clear layout, with bullet points, short
sentences, paragraph breaks, spell check.
·
Questions, sub-questions, priorities. Use
numbering. Show that you’ve thought it through.
·
Diagrams, visual representations for timelines.
If they’ve looked at hundreds of applications, they will be drawn to it.
·
Frames and signposts – create flow and interlink
phrases. Show that you have control over the process.
·
Repetition and emphasis.
·
Value for money. Applications can fall down on this,
but it’s not necessarily a ‘dealbreaker’. If things cost, they cost. Think
through everything you will need.
·
Milestones. Clear demarcations, progress
markers.
A compelling narrative needs to be assertive.
·
Don’t hypothesise too much – research needs
‘steps towards the unimaginable’.
·
Use active verbs, not aspirational ones. Not ‘I
would like to...’, or ‘perhaps I will...’ Be assertive.
·
Depict a momentum that can’t be stopped now
(pilot/investigatory/preparatory project). It’s their chance to give this
idea some legs.
It also needs to be certain.
·
The project team is the right balance of
expertise. If you’ve got a shortcoming in any area, bring in external help.
·
The structures and timescales are sensible and
achievable.
·
For your outputs, play to your strengths; make
them achievable, and don’t overstretch yourself. However, there is a need for a
‘mixed economy’: academic, impact, public engagement.
