{"id":396,"date":"2012-02-28T22:22:44","date_gmt":"2012-02-28T22:22:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/socialscienceresearchfunding.co.uk\/?p=396"},"modified":"2012-02-28T22:22:44","modified_gmt":"2012-02-28T22:22:44","slug":"coping-with-rejection-what-to-do-if-your-grant-application-is-unsuccessful-part-2-next-steps","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/socialscienceresearchfunding.co.uk\/?p=396","title":{"rendered":"Coping with rejection: What to do if your grant application is unsuccessful. Part 2: Next Steps"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
Look, I know I said that not getting funded doesn't mean they disliked your proposal, but I need a picture and it's either this or a picture of Simon Cowell with his thumb down. Think on.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In the first part<\/a> of this series, I argued that it’s important not to misunderstand or misinterpret the reasons for a grant application being unsuccessful.\u00a0 In the comments, Jo VanEvery<\/a> shared a phrase that she’s heard from a senior figure at one of the Canadian Research Councils – that research funding “is not a test, it’s a contest”.\u00a0 Not getting funded doesn’t necessarily mean that your research isn’t considered to be of high quality.\u00a0 This second entry is about what steps to consider next.<\/p>\n

1.\u00a0 Some words of wisdom<\/strong><\/p>\n

‘Tis a lesson you should heed:\u00a0 Try, try, try again.
\nIf at first you don’t succeed, Try, try, try again
\nWilliam Edward Hickson<\/a> (1803-1870)<\/p>\n

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results
\nBen Franklin, Albert Einstein, or Narcotics Anonymous<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I like these quotes because they’re both correct in their own way.\u00a0 There’s value to Hickson’s exhortation.\u00a0 Success rates are low for most schemes and most funders, so even if you’ve done everything right, the chances are against you.\u00a0 To be successful, you need a degree of resilience to look for another funder or a new project, rather than embarking on a decade-long sulk, muttering plaintively about how “the ESRC doesn’t like” your research whenever the topic of external funding is raised.<\/p>\n

However Franklin et al (or al?)<\/em> also have a point about not learning from the experience, and repeating the same mistakes without learning anything as you drift from application to application.\u00a0 While doing this, you can convince yourself that research funding is a lottery (which it isn’t) and all you have to do is to submit enough applications and eventually your number will come up (which it won’t).\u00a0 This is the kind of approach (on the part of institutions as well as individuals)<\/a> that’s pushed us close to ‘demand management’ measures with the ESRC.\u00a0 More on learning from the experience in a moment or two.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0 Can you do the research anyway?<\/strong><\/p>\n

This might seem like an odd question to ask, but it’s always the first one I ask academic colleagues who’ve been unsuccessful with a grant application (yes, this does happen,\u00a0 even at Nottingham University Business School).\u00a0 The main component of most research projects is staff time.\u00a0 And if you’re fortunate enough to be employed by a research-intensive institution which gives you a generous research time allocation, then this shouldn’t be a problem.\u00a0 Granted, you can’t have that full time research associate you wanted, but could you cut down the project and take on some or all of that work yourself or between the investigators?\u00a0 Could you involve more people – perhaps junior colleagues – to help cover the work? Would others be willing to be involved if they can either co-author or be sole author on some of the outputs?\u00a0 Could it be a PhD project?<\/p>\n

Directly incurred research expenses are more of a problem – transcription costs, data costs, travel and expenses – especially if you and your co-investigators don’t have personal research accounts to dip into.\u00a0 But if it turns out that all you need is your expenses paying, then a number of other funding options become viable – some external, but perhaps also some internal.<\/p>\n

Of course, doing it anyway isn’t always possible, but it’s worth asking yourself and your team that question.\u00a0 It’s also one that’s well worth asking before<\/em> you decide to apply for funding.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0 What can you learn for next time?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It’s not nice not getting your project funded.\u00a0 Part of you probably wants to lock that application away and not think about it again.\u00a0 Move onwards and upwards, and perhaps trying again with another research idea.\u00a0 While resilience is important, it’s just as important to learn whatever lessons there are to learn to give yourself the best possible chance next time.<\/p>\n

One lesson you might be able to take from the experience is about planning the application.\u00a0 If you found yourself running out of time, or not getting sufficient input from senior colleagues, not taking full advantage of the support available within your institution, well, that’s a lesson to learn.\u00a0 Give yourself more time, start earlier before the deadline, and don’t make yourself rush it.\u00a0 If you did all this last time, remember that you did, and the difference that it made.\u00a0 If you didn’t, then the fact is that your application was almost certainly not as strong as it could have been.\u00a0 And if your application document is not the strongest possible iteration of your research idea, your chances of getting funded are pretty minimal.<\/p>\n

I’d recommend reading through your application and the call guidance notes once again in the light of referees’ comments.\u00a0 Now that you have sufficient distance from the application, you should ‘referee’ it yourself as well.\u00a0 What would you do better next time?\u00a0 Not necessarily individual application-specific aspects, but more general points.\u00a0 Did your application address the priorities of the call specifically enough, or were the crowbar marks far too visible?\u00a0 Did you get the balance right between exposition and background and writing about the current project?\u00a0 Did you pay enough attention to each section?\u00a0 Did you actually answer the questions asked?\u00a0 Do you understand any criticisms that the referees had?<\/p>\n

4. Can you reapply?\u00a0 Should you reapply?<\/strong><\/p>\n

If it’s the ESRC you’re thinking about, then the answer’s no unless you’re invited<\/a>.\u00a0 I think we’re still waiting on guidance from the ESRC about what constitutes a resubmission, but if you find yourself thinking about how much you might need to tinker with your unsuccessful project to make it a fresh submission, then the chances are that you’ll be barking up the wrong tree.\u00a0 Worst case scenario is that it’s thrown straight out without review, and best case is probably that you end up with something a little too contrived to stand any serious chance of funding.<\/p>\n

Some other research funders do allow resubmissions, but generally you will need to declare it.\u00a0 While you might get lucky with a straight resubmission, my sense is that if it was unsuccessful once it will be unsuccessful again. But if you were to thoroughly revise it, polish it, take advice from anyone willing to give it, and have one more go, well, who knows?<\/p>\n

But there’s really no shame in walking away.\u00a0 Onwards and upwards to the next idea.\u00a0 Let this one go for now, and working on something new and fresh and exciting instead.\u00a0 Just remember everything that you learnt along the way.\u00a0 One former colleague once told me that he usually got at least one paper out of an application even it was unsuccessful.\u00a0 I don’t know how true that might be more generally, but you’ve obviously done a literature review and come up with some ideas for future research.\u00a0 Might there be a paper in all that somewhere?<\/p>\n

Another option which I hinted at earlier when I mentioned looking for the directly incurred costs only is resubmitting to another funder.\u00a0 My advice on this is simple…. don’t resubmit to another funder.\u00a0 Or at least, don’t treat it like a resubmission.\u00a0 Every research funder, every scheme, has different interests and priorities.\u00a0 You wrote an application for one funder, which presumably was tailored to that funder (it was, wasn’t it?).\u00a0 So a few alterations probably won’t be enough.<\/p>\n

For one thing, the application form is almost certainly different, and that eight page monstrosity won’t fit into two pages.\u00a0 But cut it down crudely, and if it reads like it’s been cut down crudely, you have no chance.\u00a0 I’ve never worked for a research funding body (unless you count internal schemes where I’ve had a role in managing the process), but I would imagine that if I did, the best way to annoy me (other than using the word ‘impactful<\/a>‘) would be sending me some other funder’s cast-offs.\u00a0 It’s not quite like romancing a potential new partner and using your old flame’s name by mistake, but you get the picture.\u00a0 Your new funder wants to feel special and loved.\u00a0 They want you to have picked out them – and them alone – for their unique and enlightened approach to funding.\u00a0 Only they can fill the hole in your heart<\/del> wallet, and satisfy your deep yearning for fulfilment.<\/p>\n

And where should you look if your first choice funder does not return your affections?\u00a0 Well, I’m not going to tell you (not without a consultancy fee, anyway).\u00a0 But I’m sure your research funding office will be able to help find you some new prospective partners.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the first part of this series, I argued that it’s important not to misunderstand or misinterpret the reasons for a grant application being unsuccessful.\u00a0 In the comments, Jo VanEvery shared a phrase that she’s heard from a senior figure at one of the Canadian Research Councils – that research funding “is not a test, … Continue reading “Coping with rejection: What to do if your grant application is unsuccessful. Part 2: Next Steps”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[16,7,6,13,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-396","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-application-advice","category-esrc","category-funding","category-funding-policy","category-university-culture"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t