Writing a research grant application as a PhD

Last week, we submitted a grant application to a UK research council. It was an uphill struggle from the beginning, and the last week was a flurry of activity between my supervisor and I to make the revisions that were much needed to polish the application. Now, I have to wait with my fingers crossed that our efforts will not succumb to the ~90% likelihood that we will not receive funding.

As with any long term project, I have had plenty of time to reflect on the experience. So, by way of release, here are some things that I have learned/experienced as a PhD student applying for a research grant. I plan to write a follow up post on the practicalities of writing the grant, resources that were useful, and depending on the success/failure of the application; what to do and what not to do.

Co-applicant or named researcher?

First, I would like to begin with what was, for me, the worst part of the experience. As background, I started a much more negative version of this post at the start of the year entitled "Co-applicant or named researcher - someone else decides". I am unsure if other universities have a similar policy, but what happens here is that the research committee must approve each researcher to have a JeS account of the correct type to submit research grant applications. Without this approval/support from the department, you simply cannot be a co-applicant. In short, I was denied the request to be a co-applicant on the grant application that I had written with my supervisor (note; this was at the time that we had decided on a rough plan together, and I had then worked solidly for about two months in creating the first draft of the complete application). The reason? I did not get one at first. I did receive an automated message from the JeS system to tell me that my request had been denied, but that was about it. After some prompting I was informed in essence that I was too junior (which again is a nice sting for someone hoping to stay in academia). My hope was that the fact that I had led the application across all stages might hold sway over my publication count, but sadly not. All in all, this part of the experience really stung.

The result was that by necessity, I needed to remove my name as co-applicant from each document and continue working on the application. Although I would not be receiving full credit - fully acknowledging the unlikeliness of receiving the funding in any case - I needed to continue to take the lead and work on the proposal. If I had allowed myself the opportunity to slow down for more than a brief period of venting frustrations then the application would not have gotten completed.

So, I learned several lessons pretty quickly;

• You may not get full credit for the work
• But, you must keep going regardless
• Be more experienced, I guess...

There will be setbacks and delays

For me, a setback was changing our targeted research council. Looking back it was certainly the right call, but at the time I had to do quite a bit of rethinking and restructuring - including the loss of two pages from the Case for Support (essentially the background and research plan). For others it might be illness, or changes of deadlines, receiving feedback, or co-applicants disagreements over the application, to name only a few. 

Given the time-course of a grant application, one should expect;

• There is likely to be at least one major delay, as there could be in any project. Plan for this working from the deadline
• You will likely lose a week or so before the end of the final deadline, as the application will have to be submitted to your research institution / department. To illustrate, our deadline was the 31st and we had to submit on the 24th. 

You will lose months of your PhD

The process will differ for everybody, but, writing a grant application will take months of dedicated work. I suspect that PhDs who acquired competitive funding for their doctoral research will have a stronger background in funding applications than I, but I doubt this would save them more than a few weeks. There are so many sections to the complete application, all of which take much longer than expected to polish. A 2,000 character summary of the project objectives sounds like easy going, but it is also essential that it is accurate and reflected in every other document, as well as being exciting, timely, and well written. 

• It will take months, and much longer than expected
• Seriously, take your high estimate for time commitment. Now, make that your 'best case scenario' in which you and any other co-applicants (or in my case - named researcher) work on the application solidly for, and aren't hindered by any delays.

Take help wherever you can

I was lucky enough to have a postdoc and another PhD in my lab read through and comment on the application. My wife also acted as a non-expert to offer some commentary on the documents. Each little bit of feedback is useful in some way. The comments that I found particularly helpful related to the flow of the application. Things that were clear to me were not clear in the writing. This is common. I feel, when you have spent so much time on a document that it blends into a single entity, rather than what should be a concise and flowing train of thought.

On a related note, the research councils have a ton of resources to use and the JeS has its own summaries of what is entailed in each section. What is extremely useful are other's applications, although whether they will be shared is another issue. Use these resources, they are vital in understanding what is expected in each section.

• Use any resource that you can

Writing a research grant application as a PhD

It's hard work. It is long, frustrating, and sometimes rage-inducingly tedious. In the back of your mind there will always be that niggling doubt, not just in yourself; is it the right project? am I writing this section correctly? is this enough information? how the hell can I fit this all into 6 pages? Worst, there is the understanding that it is months of work for only a small chance at gaining the funding. 

But, it is an essential skill to develop as an academic. Perhaps not as early as in your third year of a PhD, but I've always believed in developing skills early - ideally before they are actually needed. So, in way of a summary; It is draining work, with a low success rate. However, if it gets me a postdoc position in the lab I want to stay in, on a project of my own devising, then it is worth it. If not, then it is good experience (repeat to self several hundred times and you might believe it). I've grown fond of the saying (in my own words) "academia, and grant writing in particular is like a pie eating contest in which the prize is more pie". Please give me some more pie.