{"id":998,"date":"2017-08-24T16:01:54","date_gmt":"2017-08-24T15:01:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/socialscienceresearchfunding.co.uk\/?p=998"},"modified":"2017-08-24T16:01:54","modified_gmt":"2017-08-24T15:01:54","slug":"mistakes-in-grant-writing-part-95-the-gollum","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/socialscienceresearchfunding.co.uk\/?p=998","title":{"rendered":"Mistakes in Grant Writing, part 95 – “The Gollum”"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>
Image: Alonso Javier Torres [CC BY 2.0] via Flickr<\/figcaption><\/figure>A version of this article first appeared in Funding Insight<\/a> on 20th July 2017 and is reproduced with kind permission of Research Professional<\/a>. For more articles like this, visit\u00a0 www.researchprofessional.com
\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *<\/em><\/p>\n

Previously I\u2019ve written about the \u2018Star Wars Error<\/a>\u2019 in grant writing, and my latest attempt to crowbar popular culture references into articles about grant writing mistakes is \u2018the Gollum\u2019. Gollum is a character from Lord of the Rings, a twisted, tortured figure – wicked and pitiable in equal measure. He\u2019s an addict whose sole drive is possession of the Ring of Power, which he loves and hates with equal ferocity. A little like me and my thesis.<\/p>\n

Only begotten<\/strong><\/p>\n

For current purposes, it\u2019s his cry of \u201cmy precious!\u201d and obsession with keeping the Ring for himself that I\u2019m thinking of in terms of an analogy with research grant applicants, rather than (spoilers) eating raw fish, plunging into volcanoes, or murdering friends. Even in the current climate of \u2018demand management\u2019, internal peer review, and research development support, there are still researchers who treat their projects as their \u201cprecious\u201d and are unable or unwilling to share them or to seek comment and feedback.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s easy to understand why \u2013 there\u2019s the fear of being scooped and of someone else taking and using the idea. There\u2019s the fear of public failure \u2013 with low success rates, a substantial majority of applications will be unsuccessful, and perhaps the thought is that if one is going to fail, few people should know about it. And let\u2019s not pretend that internal review\/filtering processes don\u2019t at least raise questions about academic freedom.<\/p>\n

Power play<\/strong><\/p>\n

But there are other fears. The first is about sabotage or interference from colleagues who might be opposed to the research, whether through ideological and methodological differences, or because they\u2019re on the other side of some major scientific controversy. In my experience, this concern has been largely unfounded. I\u2019ve been very fortunate to work with senior academics who are very clear about their role as internal reviewer, which is to further improve competitive applications and ideas, while filtering out or diverting uncompetitive ideas, or applications that simply aren\u2019t ready. But while internal reviewers will have their views, I\u2019ve not seen anyone let that power go to their heads.<\/p>\n

Enough of experts<\/strong><\/p>\n

Second, if the concern isn\u2019t about integrity or (unconscious) bias, it might be about background or knowledge. One view I\u2019ve encountered \u2013 mainly unspoken, but occasionally spoken and once shouted \u2013 is that no-one else at the institution has the expertise to review their proposal and therefore internal review is a waste of time.<\/p>\n

It might well be true that no-one else internally has equivalent expertise to the applicant, and (apart from early career researchers) that\u2019s to be expected and welcomed. But if it\u2019s true internally, it might also be true of the external expert reviewers chosen by the funder, and it\u2019s even more likely to be true of the people on the final decision-making panel. The chances are that the principal applicant on any major project is one of the leaders in that field, and even if she regards a handful of others as appropriate reviewers, there\u2019s absolutely no guarantee that she\u2019ll get them.<\/p>\n

Significant other<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ultimately, the purpose of a funding application is to convince expert peer reviewers from the same or cognate discipline and a much broader panel of distinguished scientists of the superior merits of your ideas and the greater significance of your research challenge compared to rival proposals. Because once the incompetent and the unfeasible have been weeded out \u2013 it\u2019s all about significance<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A quality internal peer review process<\/a> will mirror those conditions as closely as possible. It doesn\u2019t matter that internal reviewer X isn\u2019t from the same field and knows little about the topic \u2013 what\u2019s of use to the applicant is what X makes of the application as a senior academic from another (sub)discipline. Can she understand the research challenges, why they\u2019re significant and important? Does the application tell her exactly what the applicant proposes to do? What\u2019s particularly valuable are creative misunderstandings \u2013 if an internal reviewer has misunderstood a key point or misinterpreted something, a wise applicant will return to the application and seek to identify the source of that misunderstanding and head it off, rather than just dismissing the feedback out of hand.<\/p>\n

Forever alone<\/strong><\/p>\n

And that\u2019s without touching on the value that research development support can add. People in my kind of role who may not be academics, but who have seen a great many grant applications over the years. People who aren\u2019t academic experts, but who know when something isn\u2019t clear, or doesn\u2019t make sense to the intelligent lay person.<\/p>\n

Most institutions that take research seriously will offer good support to their researchers. Despite this, there are still researchers who only engage with others where they absolutely must, and take little notice of feedback or experience during the grant application process. Do they really think that others are unworthy of gazing upon the magnificence of The Precious?<\/p>\n

I\u2019d like to urge them here to turn back, to take the advice and feedback that\u2019s on offer, lest they end up wandering the dark places of the world, alone and unfunded.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A version of this article first appeared in Funding Insight on 20th July 2017 and is reproduced with kind permission of Research Professional. For more articles like this, visit\u00a0 www.researchprofessional.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * Previously I\u2019ve written about the … Continue reading “Mistakes in Grant Writing, part 95 – “The Gollum””<\/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":[16,10,6,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-998","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-application-advice","category-frustrations","category-funding","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