Approaching grant writing with confidence
With Prof. Marysia Placzek
Grant writing is a pillar of any research life. Convincing funders to give you the cash to work on what interests you is a painful process. Building resilience in the process of grant writing is a must to thrive in research.
In this interview, I ask Marysia what her own approach has been to get started with grant writing. Based on her extensive experience as a research leader, I ask her how she advises early career researchers to think about grant writing and transition into research independence.
About Marysia
Marysia is a Wellcome Trust Investigator and Professor of Developmental Neurobiology in the Department of Biomedical Science at The University of Sheffield.
What a pleasure to interview Marysia as she was my very own PI when I started working as a Postdoc a great many years ago. She was an amazing PI who gave me lots of opportunities and supported me a great deal during my postdoctoral time.
Get in touch with Marysia:
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/biosciences/people/bms-staff/academic/marysia-placzek
Find out
· How thinking small may lead to great rewards in fellowship applications
· What shifting to collaboration mode instead of competition mode can bring
· How (as a PI) you can support your Postdocs explore their transition to research independence
· Why “Just do it” may need to be repeated over and over to researchers who lack confidence
· How exposing yourself to deep criticism in research is part of building your research resilience
Some reflections and questions to ponder based on my discussion with Marysia
What does it mean thinking small in fellowship applications?
Researchers and research leaders are always on the threshold of either getting a grant accepted or having one rejected, whilst for others getting the grant written and submitted is the headache they carry along with them.
I felt that the approach that Marysia has about grants was a helpful way of thinking about research funding. She describes grants as something you should try to not make a big deal about. She says that not getting a grant is not the end of the world. Well of course it is not, but for early career academics not getting a grant/ fellowship could mean not getting through probation, not getting out of your postdoc, or not getting your promotion. So, for many, they would disagree and say that actually grants are a massive big deal.
I suppose a helpful way of thinking about it, is that each time you submit a grant, you are hopefully improving what you are proposing and this is a good thing for the science.
Marysia tells us that writing a grant is a process that forces you to think logically and to think hard. It has the potential to bring your excitement about a research question onto paper. You may have played around with ideas in your head for months, before you dare articulate your thinking in writing.
She says that for her, the grant writing process is relatively short, but she mules over a grant in her head for a very long time.
Through her extensive experience as a grant/ fellowship reviewer, Marysia has observed that the mistake made by many in their first funding applications is to be overambitious. Her advice for first time fellowship/ grant writers is: think very deeply about a very small question. Presenting your research niche in an application is about convincing a panel that you are the best person to answer your very small question.
Yes, this very small question needs be unusual, and you need to have a track record through your publications to demonstrate that you have what is needed to answer this very small question.
Being able to convey your excitement and motivation about answering this very small question is part of the grant writing winning formula.
o What do you do to create “time to think” in the busy-ness of your work day?
o What is the “very small question” that you are excited about answering?
o What is your narrative to convince the review panel that you have what is needed to answer your question?
Following your own way
Each academic can choose what kind of research group they want to build. Some people will jump on any opportunity to get more PhD students and Postdocs into their research groups, whilst other will build and expand their group steadily. Marysia chose to keep her research team very small throughout her career. She preferred the intimacy of very close interactions with a small team.
Whatever the approach you chose, what you need to consider is whether the team that you have, works for you. There is not a set way of creating a research team. Your context may create external pressures to be constantly increasing the size of your team. This can work for some, but not for everyone.
o What would your perfectly constructed research group look like?
o Who are you as a research leader: do you prefer to work with a large team and are happy to only have a helicopter view of the work done by the group? Or do you want to have very close interactions with each team member, so that you can remain fully engaged in the minute details of projects? Do you prefer these close interactions, so that you can feel you are able to be highly supportive of each individual?
o What are the pressures put by your department/ institution about the size of your research team? How assertive are, you when it comes to building a team that works for you?
Shifting to collaboration mode, instead of worrying too much about competition
It can be so easy to waste lots of time worrying about what other research teams are doing, when they may be competing with you.
One way to go around “paranoia” about competition could be to turn your potential competitors into your collaborators. You may say- well it is easier said than done- yes of course but have you actually had a go at having conversations with those you think you are in competition with. Putting your cards on the table and being open through a two-way process, about where you are going could potentially turn things around.
Some collaborations start just by reaching out to someone whose work you find interesting; their expertise may contribute to what you are trying to do. Marysia gives the example of someone she had reached out to. The first time they tried to write a grant together the application was unsuccessful, but this initial interaction was the prelude of a long-lasting professional relationship. The spark for their interaction was that they knew of each other’s work, and respected each other’s science, before they had the opportunity to interact.
At an early stage in your career, you may feel that other more established academics may not be interested to interact with you. This is not a helpful way to think about it. Remember: people are pleased to be ask to contribute and they like to be valued for their expertise.
o Who does work that you really admire?
o What stops you from initiating a conversation?
o What opportunities are you constructing to get a chance to interact with researchers whose skills/ expertise could complement what you do?
PIs make a big difference in supporting their Postdocs transition to research independence
As a PI working with Postdocs, one of your greatest challenge is to support them into their own research independence. When your Postdocs are aiming to write their first fellowship application, they need to provide extreme clarity about the difference between the work done with you, and the research they are proposing to do as research fellows. Helping your Postdocs learn how they may be able to differentiate themselves from your own group is a critical step in helping them take successfully their 1st steps towards research independence.
o Have you had discussions with your Postdocs about the research they intend to pursue once they finish their contract with you?
o Are you giving your Postdocs the opportunity to become senior authors or corresponding authors on papers?
o Did you suggest a review they could be writing?
o Have you invited them to represent your research group at a meeting/ conference?
o When senior research leaders are visiting the department after a departmental seminar, do you create opportunities so that your Postdocs can meet them independently?
You may think that your Postdocs owe to know that they should be asking you for these opportunities and be pro-active to create them. However, remember that we all enter the academic world with different experiences and different amount of academic capital. Your early career researchers will know less than you about what it takes to navigate the research environment, so your role is about opening doors for them to be able to encounter developmental opportunities they may not be aware of otherwise.
Telling ourselves and telling others- using the “Just do it” mantra
For many early career academics/ researchers, the initial stage in grant or fellowship writing is the essential step in building slowly research independence. Although Marysia herself was fortunate enough to gain her first position in a research institute were funding was available and she was not at the mercy of external funding to get her research group started, she encourages Postdocs to get started early on in this journey of grant writing.
Sometimes, it is better not too think too much about what may not work, what may happen if…the mantra of “just do it” is one we can apply throughout our career.
o What is it that you have been procrastinating about doing because you are scared of failing?
o Can you visualise the reverse and think about what it would feel like to be successful with this thing that you are procrastinating about?
o What about thinking of what you may learn by having a go, and not worrying at all whether it will work out or not? Can you just focus on the learning you will gain from the process?
Exposing yourself to deep criticism in research is part of building your research resilience
At the end of my discussion with Marysia, she says “expose yourself painfully to the deepest criticism” in response to my question about how to deal with reviewers’ comments.
Whether in research or any other professional settings, when I think about exposure to criticism, I have the mental picture of having my guts examined with a scalpel. This may be a bit of an extreme image for some, so apologies for this!
I find helpful thinking about criticism through the concept of “the gift of imperfection” (based on Charmine Shirzad, author of a book and programme on Positive Intelligence) as it is about reframing the experience we have of criticism. Seeing any types of criticism (whether delivered with kindness or not) as a gift for us to improve is an immensely helpful reframing of our thinking. Resilience in research lives can be greatly helped through pro-active reframing of our circumstances.
Next time you receive what you may consider a “nasty” or “stupid” comment on a paper or a grant, have a go at pro-actively reframing the input as a gift and ask yourself:
o How brilliant will my paper/ grant be if I have the modesty to listen to how someone else is understanding my work?
o Can the misunderstanding of my work by my reviewer help me refine the way I am describing what I am aiming to do in this grant?
o Could this reviewer have a fair point and could the rethinking needed to resubmit this research proposal mean I may have a better chance to have a more successful project?
“Putting yourself out there and saying, you know I’m here, so getting out, going and offering to give talks, you know, writing reviews, just anything to build up that confidence.”
