How to win a research grant

Even in disciplines in which research is inherently inexpensive, ‘grant capture’ is increasingly being adopted as a metric to judge academics and universities. But with success rates typically little better than one in five, rejection is the fate of most applications. Six academics give their tips on how to improve the odds

Published on
July 18, 2019
Last updated
March 4, 2020
Oliver Twist asks for more
Source: Getty

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Peer review is lauded in principle as the guarantor of quality in academic publishing and grant distribution. But its practice is often loathed by those on the receiving end. Here, seven academics offer their tips on good refereeing, and reflect on how it may change in the years to come

6 December

Reader's comments (5)

Thanks
So basically as well as whatever their academic field of study, academics also have to be sales pyschologists. OK, you know the story where a guy goes to a rubbish restaurant and they ask 'are you leaving a tip'? and he says, 'Yes, my tip is to retrain your waiters and get a new chef' - so here's a 7th tip for research grants. Try and change the system so academics don't waste all that time on what has been called 'insanely low' levels of success regarding grants? How about funded research that doesn't depend on spending 1,000s of hours chasing elusive grants, so those hours could be spent actually doing the flippin' research instead???
How important is the level and type of institutional mate on grant applications?
*match*
It is quite clear to me after thirty years, and reading this , that repeatedly applying for larger grants is a pathway to nowhere. It my field in social sci it is expected: but I never get past the 'internal starter grant' stage. I have not got the bigger ones, prefer to do the research myself rather than palm it off to funded students and RAs which is what happens when you have a bigger budget. I have wasted hundreds of hours putting in fruitless applications that have come to nothing, and frustrated the co applicants too who often need these grants to secure employment or better employment. After thirty years in the game it is time to realise that work done on the cheap, or unfunded, is still good research - less wastage, less need to pump up a proposal with ambitious targets and outputs, etc. This work has resulted in really good books and articles and is equally valid compared against the sometimes underwhelming outputs resulting from European Fellowships, and British and Australian equivalents, that are well paid and also remove scholars from the teaching pool for long periods. These might have a role for incredibly time-dependent and intensive research, like coronavirus research, or where equipment or facilities are needed, but I think we should actually reward scholars for doing good research that is unfunded. It shows bravery and perseverance, and is often very good research. In our science faculty in a large world top 50 research university, research makes no positive contribution to the budget, either - it costs money.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT