The Philosophers' Cocoon

Writing successful grant applications?

In our "how can we help you?" thread, J writes:

How to write a successful grant application? I am soon to defend my PhD and I have many publications both in good general journals and top special journals so publishing is not an issue. However, where I am located it is normal to apply for a grant application as a PostDoc - to get any funding for your work. But how on earth one writes a successful application? For me, the problem seems to be that if I have an idea for a paper, I can easily write a publishable article on the topic. All I have to do is to look for articles in the journals and write my own ideas in the same way. But I have never seen a grant application that received funding, so I have no idea how they look. Is it possible to see successful grant applications somewhere? And another related point. How do you come up with ideas that need years working? When I have an idea, I write a short clever article in a few days and publish it in a journal that is fast. How to come up with 'big questions' or themes that need to be worked for many years? Do people just take the small issues and somehow make them look like big when they apply for example a grant for three years?

It seems for me that the grants go for people who know how to write applications and who can justify others that some (minor) issue needs years of pondering when in reality an efficient scholar could write an article or two on the same topic quite fast. Is it easier to get a grant for writing a book than articles? Or do I even have to explain in the application whether I am going to publish my research in a book or in articles? If I am saying I want to write a book, does it help if I manage to get a book contract before receiving funding for it? It seems yes, but on the other hand, if publishers want to see the whole manuscript before giving a contract, then the funder might think that the work is already done if one has the contract and thus maybe they do not give any money because no-one gives you money if the work is already done.

Lots of good questions here. I don't have much experience applying for grants, so I'm really not the best person to ask for advice here. But I have recently applied for one grant (currently under review), and have experience coming up with 'big questions' (two books and a third book idea for the grant application), so I can say a bit about that.

Call for Proposals: Course Development Grants in Science & Theology

Call for Proposals: Course Development Grants in Science and Theology

The “New Visions in Theological Anthropology” project at the University of St Andrews has announced a new round of course development grants in Science and Theology. 

Next application deadlines: 31 October 2020, 28 February 2021

Additional application rounds will be announced regularly until early 2022. 

Our project seeks to encourage research and teaching that brings together science and theology/religion. We encourage the development of courses which use empirical research in some aspect of theology/religion.  

• We are especially drawn to the pairings of

(1) Moral Theology & Evolutionary Biology,

(2) Spiritual Formation & Developmental Psychology, and

(3) Ecclesiology & Cognitive Science.  

• We also welcome proposals for any syllabus that engages theology with empirical science. 

• Since developing a course will take time away from other research, we have launched this series of Course Development Grants and offer stipends of £2,000.

Full details can be found here:

https://set.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk/course-development-grant/ 

Applying for postdoc grants

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, D writes:

I’m curious about the kinds of post doc funding made available by grant agencies like the early career funding available through the Humboldt Foundation, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, Leverhulme Trust, and such. Would anybody be willing to provide guidance as to how one might go about obtaining such funding? I don’t mean just submitting the applications, which I take to be pretty straight forward (aside from the process of making one’s research appealing to the evaluators for such agencies). Some of these seem to grant postdoc funding for one’s individual projects at a host institution, where the host institution itself isn’t financially on the hook the person. How does one go about connecting with a desired host institution or faculty member at such a host institution? Is it all a matter of one’s antecedent connections? Is it ever acceptable to write a such a faculty member, in effect, saying “I’m interested in this project you’re working on, and it relates to my work like so. Would you be willing to sponsor my application to X?” Is there any other practical wisdom worth knowing about how to obtain such a postdoc? Perhaps this is obvious to job market candidates from Europe, but I'm a US grad, and this info seems harder to come by.

Euro responded:

I can say a bit about Marie Curie. They are very competitive, and more universities are spending money running workshops to help people write strong applications. You really need to have your research project connect tightly with a faculty member sponsor. So, clearly, it is best if you have already connected with the person, not only corresponding with them, but actually engaging with their research. I have sponsored two applicants (who did not get them ... which is not a surprise, given how competitive they are). But the evaluation reports explicitly talked about me, the sponsor, in the evaluation. (Incidentally, I was not the weak link). But they are not the sort of thing you just apply for. You need to have connected with your sponsor, and they need to support your project. As you note, universities love them because you essentially pay your own way. These sorts of grant schemes are common in Europe.

Euro then also added:

In most of northern-western Europe (Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Scandinavia, Finland), the national funding bodies (and sometimes private foundations) support faculty research. One common form of support is to get money to support a project, which allows one to hire a post-doc or two (or more). The post-doc is tied to a very specific project, and is expected to work on it (though they can often spend some time on other research as well). These post docs are advertised like jobs (because they are jobs, and in many cases they pay well). But to be competitive you need to actually work on the topic of the post doc project. Here is where stretching things just does not work - I have seen applications that try. The most competitive candidates are already working on the topic, and have probably already read the supervisors work.

Any other readers with experience in these matters feel fit to weigh in?