Career Young Researchers | Cash for Questions: Research funding, policy and development

Signs of an uncompetitive proposal

A version of this article first appeared in Funding Insight in May 2026 and is reproduced with kind permission of Research Professional͘. For more articles like this, visit www.researchprofessional.com

From obvious red flags to hidden weaknesses

Research funding is a contest, not a test. Apart from a few schemes that use partial randomisation, it’s not about reaching a required standard, it’s about being ranked ahead of others and above the line at which funding runs out. Funding is not an unlimited good like a driving license or a PhD viva where your outcome in the morning has no impact on my chances in the afternoon. No, it’s a limited good, like an Olympic medal. And we can’t all have one.

The hard sell is hard

[A version of this article first appeared in Funding Insight in January 2023 and is reproduced with kind permission of Research Professional͘. For more articles like this, visit https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com ]

Tips on overcoming modesty to present your achievements in the best light

Bob Odenkirk as Saul Goodman in Gilligan and Gould’s ‘Better Call Saul’ (2015) and Gilligan’s ‘Breaking Bad’ (2008)

Talking ourselves up or self-promoting is difficult for most people. But there are ways to make it a little bit easier and do it a little bit better without nearly cringing to death. Some involve writing techniques (of which more later) but others involve ways of thinking that may give you permission to write about yourself.

Getting better feedback on your research grant proposals

A version of this article first appeared in Funding Insight in December 2021 and is reproduced with kind permission of Research Professional. For more articles like this, visit www.researchprofessional.com

How to nudge your draft-bid reviewers to deliver their sharpest insights

A picture of Edmund Blackadder with a caption asking if he can change one tiny aspect of the document he is erading — Rowan Atkinson as Edmund Blackadder, in Blackadder the Third. The one tiny aspect of the document that he wants to change is ‘the words’.

Have you ever asked a colleague for feedback on a draft grant proposal and been told: “looks fine to me, but it’s not really my area”? Not particularly helpful, is it? Well, in this article I’m going to help you avoid ever hearing those words again, by detailing how you can raise your chances of getting better feedback on draft bids. (Next week, I’ll try and help you avoid ever uttering those words again with some tips on giving good feedback.)

A peek inside a research funding panel

Understanding how funding panels usually work can help you write a more competitive application, says Adam Forristal Golberg.

A version of this article first appeared in Funding Insight in November 2021 and is reproduced with kind permission of Research Professional. For more articles like this, visit www.researchprofessional.com

When it comes to research funding, I’ve been poacher and gamekeeper. I’m a research development manager, but I’ve also served two terms as a public member of a research funding panel, and I still review the odd proposal. I’m going to draw upon that experience to try to explain how funding panels tend to work. They obviously vary depending on funder and scheme. So treat this article as based on a true story, but with certain scenes invented for dramatic purposes.

The art of the sift

A version of this article first appeared in Funding Insight in February 2022 and is reproduced with kind permission of Research Professional. For more articles like this, visit www.researchprofessional.com

How to select bids when funders restrict the number that each university can submit

Nicolas Poussin (1594–1665), The Judgment of Solomon (1649), oil on canvas, 101 x 150 cm, Musée du Louvre, Paris. Wikimedia Commons.

One of the most awkward challenges in research development is responding to a ‘restricted’ funding call that only permits a limited number of applications per university. This requires an internal selection process. I’m going to share some of the things I do when I set one up. I don’t have all the answers, and I’d be interested to hear what others do, via twitter, or email or the comments.

This article refers primarily to funding schemes with a hard limit on application numbers. In the UK, that includes the Leverhulme Trust’s major calls and the Academy of Medical Science’s Springboard Awards. Some of the suggestions may also be relevant to panels for schemes with a ‘soft’ limit. These typically don’t set a formal limit on application numbers, but require universities to have a process to manage demand, submit only their most competitive applications, and not support others. There are good arguments for saying that we should be doing this sift anyway, if only to prevent our researchers wasting time and effort.