The advice that follows is directed to young people who are starting out in requesting funding for a project or an annual budget. My advice is based on about thirty years of experience of writing grant applications, reviewing requests, and being involved in making final decisions about applications. My experience has involved national research funding bodies, internal university schemes, charities, and NGOs. Over the years, I have been involved with requests in the range from a few thousand dollars to a few million dollars.
Accept reality
The world is messed up. Systems are broken. They are not the way they should be. Bad decisions are made. Processes are imperfect. I am all for trying to change things. However, when you make a funding application your chances of success are best if you accept the system and engage with it as it is today. Try to change it tomorrow.
Put yourself in the shoes of the decision-makers.
You may not respect them or think they are particularly competent or well-qualified to make decisions about your funding request. However, put that aside and consider that they may be in an unenviable position. They are working within an imperfect system. They have limited time to read and evaluate a trove of applications, many on topics they do not really understand. They have limited resources to allocate. Most want to evaluate those scarce resources in a fair and equitable manner. In most contexts the ratio of available funds to the total amount of funds requested by all the applicants is somewhere in the ratio of 0.03 to 0.2. This means they need to reject a lot of applications and slim down the budgets of those that are accepted.
You have to start with small amounts of money and build up.
Trust and success are incremental. You first get a grant for a few thousand dollars. You show that you have used that well to accomplish something. You may have to do that a few times before you get tens of thousands of dollars. You then use that to accomplish something bigger. And so on it goes.
You may think you deserve to receive several $100Ks and jump this process. However, it is highly unlikely to happen. You need to prove yourself.
In different words, any year do not ask for significantly more than you were budgeted last year.
Every budget line item must be carefully justified.
Is each item really essential for successful completion of the project? We would all like to have a better computer, more technical support, a personal assistant, lots of international travel to exotic locales, release from other responsibilities, ...
But is each item necessary? Is each item consistent with your level of seniority and experience? Or is there a cheaper option? Could someone else fund it?
These issues are not just about good use of resources but also your credibility as someone who is a team player willing to accept institutional realities and limited resources.
The greater the requested budget the greater the scrutiny of the application.
Hence, asking for less money actually increases your chance of success. If your budget is 2 or 3 times the budget of competing applications the funding agency will almost always think that it is better to fund 2 or 3 groups rather than just one.
Check your attitude.
You should have confidence that what you are doing is important and worth funding. However, that is not the same as making snide comments about competitors, stroking your ego, overselling the significance of what you are doing, or expressing grievances about perceived past slights and criticisms of your work. Exhibiting such attitudes only hurt your chances of success.
Should 'inequitable' be 'equitable'?
ReplyDeleteYes. Thanks for catching that mistake. I hope my error was not a "Freudian slip". I have corrected the text.
Delete
ReplyDeleteSabine Hossenfelder
@skdh
If scientists had #OlympicGames the top disciplines would be
- The Peer Review Hurdle Race
- The Data Interpretation Duel
- The Literature Review Marathon
- The Whiteboard Cleaning Relay
and everyone's favourite
- The Grant Writing Sprint
Comment in this tweet
Data Interpretation duel has led to many loose jobs. Many a times the loser who insists on rigor of data analysis gets booted out of the job.