#4 Research Grants: Getting started

Research Grants

My department has been running a series of ‘Research Grant’ seminars this term. We’ve been looking at an array of grants - starting from small seed funds, through to complex multi-million pound projects. Winning funding for your research is of course fundamental - it’s the means to fund your projects, recruit research associates, and undertake field work. In the humanities and social science subjects some researchers are able to conduct their research with very small grants and working alone - but the funding landscape is shifting towards more collaborative, cross-disciplinary, research with clearly identified impact pathways. Funders are looking to support fewer, larger grants. So start to map out a longer term vision of how you might collaborate and develop a larger project that will be attractive to funders.

If you’re just starting off with your career I’d begin with some small proof of concept grants. It’s unlikely a funder will support you with a major grant without seeing some evidence of previous grant experience, budget management, and proof you can deliver the outcomes.

Begin by seeking funding from your institution and/or smaller funding bodies. Register with sites such as Research Professional so that you can stay abreast of various (and sometimes obscure) funds.

Survey the government and charity funding sites, and begin to map out the key dates and timeframes for submission. You don’t want to be rushing and scrambling to meet a deadline that’s only day’s away. Plan carefully and set aside time for grant writing and reviewing. Like all writing it takes longer than anticipated.

In the small grant stage you’re looking to demonstrate that there is a worthy project and that you’re the person to conduct this research. Use the initial grant to publish some initial work, test, and build up your knowledge. The aim is then to use this as a springboard for a larger application.

The chances of success are, as we all know, small. Many excellent projects do not receive funding. There’s not enough funding to go around and sometimes our grants do not align with the wider objectives of the funders. Whilst we can’t do much about the limited funding pot we can make sure we align and craft our pitch so that it resonates with the funder. Most large funding bodies set out their vision - make sure there’s some compatibility and alignment.

Then begin to write out the application. Grant writing is useful not only for the funding it yields - it’s also a means to develop your idea and to think about the project management. Your work will also receive peer review and the comments and critique can further enhance and refine your ideas and ambitions.

Many of the grant applications I review don’t start off well. There’s either too much context, too much unnecessary detail, or a complex and rambling position statement.

The opening needs to be a straightforward question, or bold statement, that sets out the project, almost like the headline to a newspaper article. It needs to grab attention and be memorable. The reviewer will have to discuss the application in a committee meeting - it helps if they can remember the project and feel a connection. They need to be excited. Most applications are frankly dull and forgettable. I’m not saying be bombastic or outrageous - but there needs to be a ‘hook’ or sense of urgency and importance right from the outset.

Begin by simply setting out what the purpose and aim of the project is. If you can express this as a question it helps because the reader immediately starts thinking about the answer, and also becomes curious and eager to know what happens next.

If you follow this process the reviewer should have a reasonable idea what the project is attempting to do within the first paragraph. Help the reviewer to quickly understand the project.

In addition to setting out a clear problem and why it is important to conduct the research you should spend time explaining the methods. Do not present a complex methodology or theory if possible - rather focus on the step-by-step approach you will follow. The aim is not to dazzle your reviewer with the cutting-edge and radical methods you’re going to pioneer. Rather, you’re aiming to convince them that you have properly planned the project, you’ve assessed the risks and limits, and that you can be trusted to organise and manage the funds.

The methods are also another chance for you to demonstrate a clear process and that the reviewer can fully understand what will happen. So many applications are rejected because it isn’t clear what the purpose of the grant is, nor how it will be done. Keep it simple and use ordinary and easy to read language. If there is space in the word count you can then go on to express in more detail the complexities and nuances of the project.

We often hear about grant successes on social media, university websites, and from colleagues - but rarely are the ‘failures’ and ‘rejections’ mentioned. It can be disheartening and frustrating when the rejection emails arrive - but reflect, revise, recycle, and reframe. Nearly all my grant rejections have been recycled and resubmitted. Or they’ve developed and morphed into other projects and opportunities.

Good luck with your applications - let me know if you try some of the points above. I hope you’re able to secure some funding.