Effective writing to get research grants

Professor David Greatbatch, Honorary Visiting Professor at the University of York. 

By Jill Arul

SMU Office of Research & Tech Transfer – While researchers typically want to spend their time immersed in their subject of study, the most successful ones also work hard at convincing others that their research is important – and worth funding. Writing such proposals to secure funding can require a whole new skill set, including the ability to accept multiple rounds of failure, said Professor David Greatbatch, an Honorary Visiting Professor at the University of York.

“Don’t be put off by the fear of failure,” Professor Greatbatch said at the start of his online workshop, held on 1 March 2021 and organised by Singapore Management University’s (SMU) Office of Research and Tech Transfer. He offered valuable advice from his own years of writing failed ­and successful grant proposals, and reviewing others’.

Professor Greatbatch has secured funding for over 75 academic and applied research projects from a range of agencies in the United States and the United Kingdom, including the Wellcome Trust and the Economic and Social Research Council. He also offers feedback, one-on-one support for research funding applications and workshops such as this one. In his own research, he specialises in studies of social interaction in organisational settings.

In the grant-writing workshop, Professor Greatbatch emphasised the need to look at proposals from the perspective of peer reviewers and grant panel members, and offered advice on how to hold their attention and fulfil their requirements.

Adapting your style

Diving into writing style, he stressed the importance of persuasive rhetoric. A proposal should not be written in the same way as an academic paper, he said. In fact, what could be frowned upon in academic writing might be rewarded in a proposal. That could include flowery language or expressive adjectives. Professor Greatbatch recommended using words like ‘ambitious’ and ‘unprecedented’ to convey enthusiasm and confidence, and to convince the panel that this is a project worth funding. Such writing shows you are excited about your research, which can attract the attention of and stir a positive reaction from the reviewer.

Before a reviewer can approve a project for funding, they have to understand it. While it is easy to fall back on familiar jargon, reviewers outside your field may not necessarily know it. Clarity of communication might mean changing your vocabulary. This is particularly important in the abstract as you explain the context and purpose of your study. At the same time, reviewers who are experts in your field should have enough information to scrutinise your proposal in detail and understand exactly what you intend to do.

Primed and prepared

The literature review in your proposal plays two crucial roles: to demonstrate familiarity with the proposed area of study and to present gaps that your project will fill. It is important to be prepared with a full understanding of existing research on your topic. If there is little to no literature on the topic, your proposal should explain why. 

Often, after receiving a proposal to review, Professor Greatbatch will do a quick search of his own. “It is amazing how often, when I do that, I very quickly locate important publications that have not been mentioned in the proposal,” he explained. “That is really fatal.”

On top of a comprehensive literature review, every proposal should contain a well-defined and feasible timeline. Because plans are subject to change, the timeline should include each team member’s contribution, their availability and when they come into play. Having a well-defined framework shows that you are prepared and gives funders confidence in yourself and your team.

A detailed budget is also essential for funders to understand the scale of your project and how exactly you intend to spend the grant money. This should be available in both the proposal and the application form. In Professor Greatbatch’s experience, the panel is likely to look at the budget closely and if any discrepancies are found, it could cast doubt on your competence and the project’s success.

The devil is in the details

When it comes to details, grant applicants must walk a fine line – not including enough detail could be detrimental, but so is including too much. According to Professor Greatbatch, many proposals devote too much attention to why the research is important, and not enough on how it will be conducted. Reviewers should not be left with any questions; from methodology to budget, a realistic research plan should be laid out clearly and specifically.

Professor Greatbatch offered a particularly helpful tip: when editing your proposal, anticipate any questions reviewers might have and answer them. Anticipating questions includes adding a contingency plan. Predict potential issues that could arise and have a plan ready to address them.

Ending the workshop on an encouraging note, Professor Greatbatch reassured attendees that even the most eminent academics, such as Nobel laureate and molecular biologist Carol Greider, have faced rejections for their proposals, but that did not make grant-writing a futile exercise.

“I think two-thirds of the proposals I have submitted over the years have failed,” he recalled. “But I don’t actually think they failed; I think they were just unsuccessful in securing funding.”

Offering sound advice from his own experiences, Professor Greatbatch explained that even unsuccessful proposals can be used as learning points, or be repurposed to develop smaller-scale research projects, journal articles and book chapters. 

For SMU faculty who are keen to read more about the content shared by Professor Greatbatch during the workshop, please visit our intranet site. We hope you find the information useful as you work on preparing your grant proposals. 

Back to Research@SMU May 2021 Issue