{"id":1053,"date":"2018-05-18T10:25:46","date_gmt":"2018-05-18T09:25:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/socialscienceresearchfunding.co.uk\/?p=1053"},"modified":"2018-05-18T10:27:46","modified_gmt":"2018-05-18T09:27:46","slug":"applying-for-research-funding-is-it-worth-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/socialscienceresearchfunding.co.uk\/?p=1053","title":{"rendered":"Applying for research funding \u2013 is it worth it?"},"content":{"rendered":"

A version of this article first appeared in Funding Insight<\/a> on 6th March 2018 and is reproduced with kind permission of Research Professional<\/a>. For more articles like this, visit www.researchprofessional.com<\/em><\/p>\n

Success rates are low and applications are more and more time consuming to write. Is it worth it? Here\u2019s a quick list of considerations that might help you reach a better decision.<\/em><\/p>\n

While the latest success rates from UK research councils showed a very modest overall improvement<\/a> after five consecutive annual falls, most observers regard this as a blip rather than as a sign of better times to come. Outside the Research Councils, success rates are often even lower, with some social science\/humanities fellowship schemes having single digit success rates.<\/p>\n

While success rates have fallen, demands on applicants have steadily risen. The impact agenda has brought first the impact summary and then the pathways to impact statement, and more recently we\u2019ve seen greater emphasis on data management plans and on detailed letters of support from project partners that require significant coordination to obtain. It would be one thing if it were just a question of volume \u2013 if you want a six or seven figure sum of what\u2019s ultimately public money, it\u2019s not unreasonable to be asked to work for it. But it\u2019s not just that, it\u2019s also the fiddly nature of using JeS and understanding funder requirements. I\u2019m forever having to explain the difference between the pathways to impact and the impact summary, and there are lots of little quirks and hidden sections that can trip people up.<\/p>\n

But beyond even that, there\u2019s the institutional effort of internal peer review from research development staff and senior and very busy academic staff. Whether that\u2019s an internal review mandated by the research council – shifting the burden of review onto institutions – or introduced as a means of improving quality, it\u2019s another cost.<\/p>\n

Given the low success rates, the effort and time required, and the opportunity costs of doing so, are we wasting our time? And how would we know?<\/p>\n

The research<\/p>\n