https://billwadge.wordpress.com/2020/02/10/im-good-enough-im-smart-enough-and-dog-gone-it-people-like-me-writing-grant-applications/
I will solve X.
I will apply A to solve X.
I will try to solve X until I have a good idea.
I’m bound to have a good idea at some point.
I plan to have a good idea.
I have several ideas and one is bound to be good.
I have an indexed family of ideas, one of which must be good.
I once had a good idea.
I have an idea which I will investigate for goodness.
I have this fascinating idea that must be good for something.
I have an idea, here it is, and here’s why it’s good. But first let me tell you the background.
THE ONE:
“I intend to solve X using idea Y”!
I like this one too:
X has been a major problem since the beginning of time. Y, Z, and T have been tried to solve it, but little progress has been made, and we are stuck with X.
Recently, in the context of V, the use of W has shown great success. Could W be the missing ingredient for solving X? Although this is a plausible and intriguing possibility, a number of technical issues (A,B, and C) need to be addressed before applying W to X.
A
simple recipe for a successful proposal, applies to industry-relate:
What
is the problem?
How will you solve it?
How will you solve it?
How
strong is your team and approach?
*********************
And her is a bit longer, but still brief explanation of how to write a successful grant application
Aim
In
one sentence state the aim. Must read as: “I intend to solve X using idea Y”.
Background
Describe
what exactly, not generally, has been done already by other people trying to achieve
your aim.
What
exactly are yet unresolved issues and problems.
Innovation
What
exactly is the innovation (brilliant idea) of this of this proposal?
A
“try and learn” approach is not good enough because of low feasibility?
Methodology
Detail
the methods and approach to execute that innovation and achieve your objectives.
Feasibility
Timeline
/ Gantt chart with 3-5 objectives detailing how the aim will be achieved.
Well
costed budget.
Well-designed
tasks for all participants.
Description
of challenges and weaknesses, problems and potential issues of the proposed innovative
approach and how they will be resolved.
Do
not leave to a chance that the project is feasible just because of applicant’s
past achievements.
Benefit and
significance
What
knowledge will be improved exactly?
Why
the selected specific problem is significant compared to other problems?
How
exactly (quantified, in numbers) the outcomes of this proposal are going to
provide benefits and to who?
What
exactly and by how much exactly something will be improved?
Quantitatively,
in numbers estimated by you or others, what exactly economic, commercial,
environmental, social / cultural benefits will be provided?
How
specific products, applications, researchers, businesses, or mums and dads in Joondalup
will benefit?
Cost effectiveness and value for money.
Investigators and team
Previous
successful projects (especially top category 1 grants)
Strong
research leadership/management, mentoring students
Do
not list outputs, list impacts, detail why and how the contribution is
outstanding.
CI’s
research impact numbers must create an impression of outstanding, not just
average, impact in the field.
Research
environment, existing, supportive, high quality for both the project and PHD
students. How exactly University supports you and your research area? Lab
resources / Technical skills / Personnel available.
Independent
external national/international reviews
What
are the outputs not inputs? Not the grants received, but what have you done
with the grant money? Create confidence in timely and successful completion.
High
profile "stars" FTs, Fls, SPRFs, Fellows of societies, Editors major
journals.
Recognised
national/international centre.
High
profile International visitors. Previous successful collaborations. Industry
partners
Teaching
or Services
National
and international collaborations.
CIs
from two independent institutions provide a backup plan and strengthen the
proposal. CI skillset must be complimentary, not overlapping. If international partner
is required, then why national partner is not good enough? Team must have high
impact record.
CI
must not just lead, coordinate, oversee or supervise, but do some of the actual
work in the lab.
Explain
why CI’s are world leaders in their expertise area? Why no one else has so deep
experience that they have? Track record must explain the capability to achieve
objectives (not aim).
PDH
stipends should be provided by the host institution, since Australia pays for
it anyway.
How
significant are these impacts compared to others?
Link
to CIs public researcher profile + link to ORCID.
Better
be a well explained sole investigator, than a team who have not really
demonstrated significant expertise yet. They may have fewer publications, or
ones that are not directly related to the topic.
Notes
Never
write bullshit sentences which are too general, be specific.
When
the researchers have recently struck gold (discovered something new and
important) during their past research, and now they want to follow their gold
seam and keep harvesting exciting results, then the grant is funded.
Out-of-the-box,
risky, but innovative ideas must have the demonstrated evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment