Think like a reviewer: the formula for great research grant proposals

By Jill Arul

SMU Office of Research & Tech Transfer– From biomedical breakthroughs to social science successes – great research has the power to impact whole communities and lay the foundation for further advancement in its own field and others. However, before research can make a change, funding agencies and their reviewers must be convinced of the project’s potential.  

According to Professor Julien Chaisse from the City University of Hong Kong’s School of Law, just roughly 20 per cent of grant proposals end up being funded in Australia, Europe and Hong Kong. He believes the same is likely true for similar academic communities like Singapore.

At an online research grant proposal writing workshop organised by Singapore Management University’s (SMU) Office of Research & Tech Transfer, Professor Chaisse described the steps researchers can take to give themselves the best chance of being a part of that 20 per cent.

Over the course of his career, Professor Chaisse has played the role of both applicant and reviewer. As an applicant, he has obtained funding from both public and private agencies across the globe in countries like Hong Kong, Switzerland and Europe. As a reviewer, his experiences are similarly varied as he lends his expertise to funding agencies around the world.  

In the hour-long grant-writing workshop held on 25 February 2022, Professor Chaisse demystified key terms and advised researchers on how they can present information clearly by first and foremost considering the task ahead of the reviewer.

Why should they support my work?

To secure appropriate funding, reviewers must not only be convinced of the project’s importance, but also of the researcher’s value in leading the project. Additionally, a researcher’s institution’s mission plays a significant role in persuading agencies – particularly if this mission is aligned with the funding agency’s current goals.

As such, Professor Chaisse explains that researchers must immediately answer three key questions. “You have to explicitly tell the reviewers why testing your hypothesis is worth their money, why you are the person to do it and why your institution will give you the required support to get it done,” he stated.

However, he stressed that while answering these questions, it is important for researchers to remain realistic and practical. Drawing from his experience as a reviewer, Professor Chaisse shared that in their bid to persuade agencies, applicants often overpromise when it comes to their project timeline and results. He continued to warn that in their extensive experience, most reviewers can quickly identify when a project plan is unattainable.

Finally, when making their case, researchers should use clear and simple terms to ensure their work is understood fully by reviewers who may not have the same research expertise or first language as them. “I myself am a non-native English speaker but have reviewed research grant proposals in English from several countries,” Professor Chaisse shared. “Do not forget that a grand writing style is not going to ensure funding – it is more important to use plain English that is easily understood by reviewers.”

Research grant proposal do’s and don’ts

After shedding light on the overarching questions a grant proposal has to answer, Professor Chaisse dove into the details and defined six key concepts that must be clearly explained and well organised.

Importantly, he clarified the difference between several seemingly similar terms – result, research output, outcome and impact. Each of these concepts demands its own well thought-out explanation that takes into account their subtle differences.

For example, ‘outcome’ and ‘impact’ both refer to the expected effects of the researcher’s project. However, the outcome usually occurs shortly after the research project is complete while the impact is seen in the long term with a wider influence on society.

Similarly, the terms ‘result’ and ‘research output’ have distinct meanings despite being easily confused. Professor Chaisse explained that ‘result’ refers to work that is generated during the project, like new policy recommendations, while ‘research output’ is the way in which results can be accessed, either through blog posts, websites, videos or journal publications.

“I want to make it clear that all the funding agencies’ criteria are not just what you assume they mean,” stressed Professor Chaisse. “These concepts mean something very specific and must be understood and addressed.”

A reviewer’s top tips

Professor Chaisse then went on to point out several grievous errors researchers should avoid when writing grant proposals. Of these errors, two in particular stood out – padding a budget and citing a knowledge gap as the objective of the project.

He said that reviewers meticulously review each budget item and explained that a padded budget will come across as inefficient planning. Additionally, when it comes to the objective of the project, Professor Chaisse stated that filling a knowledge gap is simply not enough – reviewers expect the wider importance and relevance of the project to be explained clearly.  

Researchers should also be sure to include potential obstacles. Rather than only emphasising the intended successes of the project, applicants must consider the barriers that can stand in their way and describe the measures they have in place to mitigate them.

Once a new researcher himself, Professor Chaisse recalls feeling indignant when his proposals were rejected by reviewers that were not experts in his field. He encourages researchers to recognise their own duty to clearly explain the importance of their research and take into account the feedback of past proposals to apply again and keep working to pursue their passions.

For SMU faculty who are keen to read more about the content shared by Professor Chaisse 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 2022 Issue