[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.
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
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 version of this article first appeared in Funding Insight in July 2021 and is reproduced with kind permission of Research Professional. For more articles like this, visit www.researchprofessional.com
What to pay attention to when consulting call documentation
‘Make sure you read the call spec’ is one of the most frequently dispensed pieces of advice from grants managers and research offices alike. It might sound mind-numbingly obvious but, still, a not insignificant proportion of applicants to most funding schemes—especially the smaller ones—won’t have followed it and their chances of success will be slim to none.
While most applicants won’t make such an elementary error, it can still pay to unpack what following this apparently self-evident advice actually entails. Knowing how call literature is usually written and presented, what to look out for and how to read it can, in the final analysis, make the difference between your bid sinking and swimming.
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.
This is the first part of a three part series about promotions and careers in UK universities. This first post focuses on “administrative, professional, and managerial” (APM) staff, although I touch issues related to other job families, especially research and teaching. A second blogpost will have more to say about academic promotions, and a third with some thoughts on possible changes and reforms, and a few things I’ve learned over the years. I’ve not written the second or third yet, but I’m going to publish the first in the hope it motivates me to write the others faster.
Opportunities for career progression and promotion and the level of fairness and transparency and consistency (or lack thereof) is inevitably a hot topic in every sector. However, I have a theory that the situation in universities can be particularly problematic because of mutual envy and incomprehension between academic and non-academic promotions.
To a non-academic like me, academic promotions are odd. Sorry, but they are. It’s hard to think of many professions where it’s possible to be doing largely the same job – teaching, research, administration/management – while still having the potential for advancement from Assistant to Associate to full Prof, and then potentially up the various Professorial pay bandings.
Of course, that’s not entirely fair – the level of performance and expertise and expectations and responsibilities in those three core areas increases up the academic payscale. Or at least they should. I guess medical doctors are a good parallel case. And professional footballers.
APM staff – by which I mean “administrative, professional, and managerial” staff – careers work very differently. I’d note in passing that every institution seems to believe that its own chosen nomenclature for grades and job families (APM4, APM5, APM6) is universal and understood sector wide, when it’s only the pay spine that’s common, not the grade boundaries.
