Speaker 1: After more than a decade of giving advice to people about how to write grant proposals, I thought I'd make a video and put my key thoughts all down in one place. And so here I'm going to run through what I think are the four golden rules of writing a grant proposal. And the first rule is, who do you need to convince? And I would say that the first person you need to convince is yourself. You might have had a bright idea and you think that that's going to make a great proposal, but I would say the first thing you should do is look in the mirror. Really look hard at your idea. Really try to identify what the key elements of your idea are. If you're only writing the grant proposal because your head of department has told you that you need to get more grant funding, or maybe because you think you deserve it because you've written a whole lot of good papers recently, then you're not really going to be in the best frame of mind for convincing other people. Really you need to be in that positive, excited frame of mind, thinking about the other people. So here's a list of some of the things you might be wanting to do with your grant money if you're successful. And if you've got these in your mind really at the start of writing the proposal, you'll be much better placed. You might be wanting to have funding for equipment. It might be that you need staff to support your research, maybe access to facilities, travel, all sorts of things. If you think about these first very carefully and think about how they're going to fit together, you're going to structure your grant around this. You're going to make a much more compelling case. And here are the people that you need to make your case to, the assessors and the panel. And it's really important to think about this. I think many people don't spend enough time thinking about this. Here we've got a range of people. They're not all going to be just like you. They might be a more old-fashioned professor type with wanting to see fundamental results of analysis or so on. It might be someone who's in the lab doing really practical work, and they'll be wanting to see those kind of elements in proposals. It might be a business person who's focused on commercial outcomes. You don't know who all the people on the panel are, but you really need to make sure that your grant is going to appeal to them, no matter what range of people that they are. And it's, I think, a really important thing to spend time on this. That's why this is golden rule number one. Of course, you might be now feeling like you're being pulled in all sorts of different directions, and that's natural. And you just got to sort of accept it, I think, and really understand that that's part and parcel of trying to convince people that they should give you the funding that you're going to be asking for. And that's really important to think about. What's on their mind? They take their jobs very seriously. They've got money, potentially it's public money from a government grant scheme, or it might be private money. Whichever it is, you can be sure that the people on that panel are going to be taking this very seriously. And it's a competition. You're in a competition. Those people are also very busy. They've got lots of things on their mind, like this person here who's trying to ride a unicycle off to a business meeting while also checking emails. They're going to spend time on your grant, of course, but they've got lots of other things on their mind. So if you can make your grant jump off the page and really appeal to them and make their job easy, you're going to have a much better chance. It's not just about you starting to write things that you think are interesting. You've really got to think about who you're appealing to. So you really need to think. Think hard before you even sit down to start writing. OK, what's golden rule number two? That is the problem. And I find that people really don't spend enough time on the problem, either thinking about it beforehand or really articulating it. If your problem looks like this, with lots of complexity and lots of pipes of different types and valves and different parameters and all sorts of things intermingling, if you're describing your problem like this, you're going to find it really difficult to get the idea across to that panel and to those assessors. You really need to make your problem clear. And so that's something to spend some time on. Really think about that. How do I make my problem absolutely clear? I would say if you can't engage the reader in your problem, then no matter how good your solution or your approach or your methodology is going to be, they're just not going to be engaged in it unless they believe in the problem. Another aspect of the problem is it really should be intriguing, should be intriguing to the panel. And here's a picture you've probably seen before where it's kind of intriguing. Each of these coloured areas have the same number of squares in the top picture as they do in the bottom picture. But there's an extra square blank in the bottom picture. How can this possibly be? And it really is a conundrum. It's intriguing. And I would say if you can put time and effort into making sure that your presentation of your problem is intriguing, then you're going to really get an advantage. You don't want to be like this situation here where the person on the left is engrossed in their problem and passionate about their problem and really insistent about how interesting it is. But they're not looking at the person on the right and realising that person's just not interested. So you really need to find a way to make your problem be presented in a way that seems to be interesting, seems to be intriguing, not just to you, but to the panel. Of course, your problem also needs to be hard and you need to make it clear that it's hard. If you explain your problem too matter-of-factly and too straightforward, then it's going to seem just sort of easy. So one of the ways, of course, to make it seem hard and make it clear that it's hard is to talk about others' work. So I'd say on this point, though, don't just simply list a whole lot of background literature and say all of these papers are relevant. I think it's really important to really clearly state why the papers that have come before by other people have attempted the problem. So it's definitely interesting. They found it interesting, but they weren't able to solve it and explicitly say how they weren't able to solve it. Of course, you don't want to denigrate their work, but you really, it is important if you can make clear where the shortcomings are or the assumptions that were made that were not quite accurate or whatever, and you make that clear in your proposal, that makes the job of the panel member easier. The panel member doesn't need to do all that thought and work it out for themselves. They just read what you've said. And then, of course, they decide whether they agree with you or not, but they don't have to do all that work themselves. So that's an important part of writing your proposal. It really also needs to have a so-what factor. Here's a person who might be spending the whole time on their project mixing chemicals, trying to see if one chemical reacts with another, maybe a solution changes color, what have you. And they might do this for three years, really trying to get to the bottom of which particular chemicals react in particular ways. But in their grant, it would really be advantageous to them, and many people do, where they say, look, if we can solve this, it's going to lead towards a cure for cancer, for example. So you're in a competition and you might be up against people who are adding this element to their grant proposal where, sure, the work they're doing might be more technical and more detailed, but they're linking it to a possible cure for cancer. Again, the people on the panel are really going to be more engaged in that. And if you can make your grant have that link to a so-what factor, that's going to be important, especially since you're in competition. So what's common rule number three? Well, this is what you are going to do. And I would say no matter what your field, I know what you're going to be doing, at least what you should be doing. You should be doing these things. You should be doing new things, novel things, important things. There should be a key idea. You should be doing something fundamental. Maybe there's a critical step in your approach. And you really need to use these words. Put these words throughout your proposal in the section where you're talking about what you are going to do. Really make it clear to the reader that there is something new and point out what it's new. And if you think it's important, you should say that it's important. Don't leave it up to the panel member to work it out and decide and think, oh, yes, I haven't heard of that before. That seems to be new, I guess. Yes, I think that's important. What you should do instead is to state it in your application. Use these words throughout your application. Absolutely vital that you do this to make your proposal jump out in the competition. If you're working with other people and maybe just anyway, you need to make sure your proposal is coordinated and looks coordinated, not like these people here who are all dancing to the same song, but they're dancing in different timings and some of them are clapping up high, some got their legs apart, some are moving their elbows and so on. If your proposal looks like this, then it's not going to be captivating in terms of giving confidence to the panel that you're going to be successful. So one example of this, for example, it might seem very small, but I often see when there's multiple chief investigators or investigators on a grant, if they've done their CVs all in a different font or a different format, it doesn't look like they're all really coordinated. And you might think that's a minor trivial thing, but again, you're in a competition. If there's another grant and it looks like all of the people working on the grant are all aligned and they've all got clear roles, person A will be doing this, person B will be doing this. And if it's clear that they've worked together in the past and that they've got good outcomes in the past, then that's going to make a much more compelling case. So it's really important. Don't just collect a group of your colleagues together and say, yes, we think we'd be able to tackle this problem and leave it up to the panel to work out exactly how they're going to work together, how you're all going to work together. No, it's much better and very important for you to make it absolutely clear yourself. So what's the last golden rule, golden rule number four? We've said who you're thinking about, the panel. We've said the problem. We've said what you're going to do. What's golden rule number four? And some people think at this point they say to me, oh, it's all the administration and the budget. And I would say, no, golden rule number four is that you're the expert and this really needs to come through in your application. So what do I mean by this? Well, I've got this sort of an idea of this self-promotion spectrum. And there are people on the left hand side of this spectrum and they are shy, a bit reserved. Perhaps you might identify with this. I'm not sure. There's other people on the right hand side of this spectrum who are shouting out about how fantastic their project is and how important their work is. Perhaps you're at this end of the spectrum. And what I would say is that you're in this competition. Now, let's think about the panel again. And I would say this time, put yourself in the shoes of the panel. Think to yourself, if I was on the panel, where would I be looking to give out the money that I'm charged with giving out in a responsible way? And what I would probably do is I'd probably say that this person on the right hand side is a little bit over enthusiastic and maybe they're making claims that I don't quite believe. So I'm going to move them a little bit back on that spectrum, a little bit to the left. And maybe this person on the left is a little bit too modest. And I think I'm going to think, yes, I think they can do more than what they're saying. In fact, I've seen their track record before and I'm in my judgment, they can do more. They haven't claimed it, but I think they can do more. And what I'd say to you is if you think of yourself in that panel and you've maybe done those adjustments for people, you're probably still likely to go and give the money more to the right hand side of the spectrum where there's more level of enthusiasm being stated off the page. And if they do what they're saying, it'll be fantastic for the world. If they don't do it, well, they said they would. And, you know, that's sort of they overstated it. And sort of maybe the risk aversion side of a panel member might be willing to go that way, because if the other person, if they give it to the shy person and the shy person doesn't do what they're saying, well, maybe that's the panel member might have made a mistake and sort of not seen something. So I really think if you put yourself in the mind of the panel, you'll probably I would say for most people, your human nature would mean that you're going to be giving the money towards the right hand side of this panel. So I say what you should try to be doing is to be confident. Make sure that your grant proposal looks confident. It's not overstated, but it's certainly not understated. You want to be confident. And I think that's an absolutely critical element of a grant proposal. So if you've written your grant proposal, reread it, reread it many times, reread it from the point of view of each different type of panel member and read it with a view. Is this confident? Are they saying that they will develop a new technique or that they expect to discover the linkage between certain parameters? Or are they saying, oh, we hope to and we're going to investigate and things like this? If they're saying those sort of things, it's not confident. If you're saying that you will be doing this or expect to get some outcomes, much more confident, much more chance that your grant will stand out from the crowd. So how do you start? Let's have some sort of tips here. Well, first of all, don't start at the beginning of the application form. That's for sure. I would say start by identifying those key contributions that you're proposing to make. Make a dot pointed list and really, as I said, look in the mirror and really make sure that they are things that you would find yourself if you were on the panel. Also, decide on the key flow of ideas throughout your grant. You're telling a story. The panel members are humans. You're a human and humans engage through stories. And if you can have that story element in your grant proposal, it'll be much more engaging. Again, thinking about the best way to get your ideas across to the panel. Certainly don't let it build up to become a beast. Don't put everything off until the last minute and madly try to do it in the last couple of weeks before the application deadline. Break the task down into manageable components and then write a paragraph on each component. An absolutely critical thing to do is to look at the assessment criteria. Again, I find that not enough people do this. Download the assessment criteria from the granting body. Read them carefully. The assessors on the panel are going to have to put numbers against each of these assessment criteria. So make sure that you have clear headings in your proposal that align with those categories that they're going to have to put their numbers against. And sometimes the writing guidelines for the grant proposal don't match up with the assessment guidelines. I've seen this many times on different grant funding schemes. So if you're using just limiting to the headings that the writing guidelines tell you, you may be missing some of the headings which you could put as subheadings for some of the important assessment criteria. So really make sure you understand the assessment criteria. That's how they're going to be measuring you. OK, so I'm finishing with some writing tips, short sentences. The number of times I see people with very long sentences, it doesn't jump off the page. It's not easy to grasp, especially if the person reading it is on a unicycle, going to a business meeting, trying to check their emails. You want to make it very clear to those readers and not have to have them think about every single sentence that's written. I would say put the important part of a sentence at the start of the sentence. Again, another small tip, but very important. For example, here's a sentence. We optimize the cooling because there are constraints on the temperature. Rather than saying because there are constraints on the temperature, we optimize the cooling. The important part of that sentence is the fact that you're going to optimize the cooling. That's the active thing that you're going to do. So put that at the start of the sentence. And I really encourage people, every single sentence you write, think about this. It's very important. It makes a big difference to reading an overall document. Another important thing is it's not a textbook. Keep reminding yourself of that. It's not a textbook. You're not aiming to teach the panel. You're aiming to impress and convince the panel. And there's a clear difference in this. I see so many times people writing grant proposals where they go into a lot of detail about their problem or their approach, their methodology, what they're going to be doing and explaining it all in great sort of detail. Well, the grant assessor doesn't need to go away and sit an exam at the end of it. They're not trying to learn it so that they can then apply it in their own workplace. They're wanting to read your proposal to make a decision about where to put the money that they are tasked with allocating. And really, it's important to be thinking about that. Impressing and convincing is much more important than teaching. The first sentence in each paragraph should let the reader know what the paragraph is going to be about. Again, I see many times where a paragraph is mixed up, lots of different ideas in one paragraph. It doesn't help when the reader is reading it. They're wanting to probably wanting to in the first case, even just to skim through before they read it. And they're going to flick through the proposal. And if you can make sure your paragraphs really in the first line, the first few words of each paragraph, the reader knows what it's going to be about. They can pick out the paragraphs they're particularly interested in and they can really read those in extra more detail. If you've mixed it all up, all the ideas are all mixed up. It's going to be very difficult for the reader. A tip that isn't absolutely necessary, but I suggest it, and that is to use the past tense when you're talking about prior work. Certainly, the prior work exists now, so there are techniques, the technique still exists, even if someone published it before. So you could say it was published in reference five. The technique uses a different approach to this or that, but it would be much easier for helping the reader know the difference between your proposal for the future and what's in the past if you use the past tense for that. So you could say in their approach, they took an approach of using this and that together. So you're just using past tense for prior work makes a real difference when it comes to your work and it makes your proposals in the future really stand out. To me, we and our are absolutely golden words, and I would only use them when you're referring to the project team members. So here's an example. Don't say, we know that smoking causes cancer, so we propose to do whatever we're going to do on this grant proposal. You can see here that we've used we twice in this sentence. The second we seems to be about the chief investigators or the investigators on the program, on the project. But the first we is ambiguous. It's probably trying to say that we, as in everyone in the world, knows that smoking causes cancer. It might also be in some other sentences. More specific in your area might be that we, as in we in our research community, know about this process. But wherever there's ambiguity, it causes a question mark in the mind of the reader. So I really strongly suggest you to not use those we or our, those words, unless you're actually talking about we as in the project team of researchers who are going to work on this grant proposal. So in summary, we've got the four golden rules, and I would say that you should spend 50 percent of your effort on golden rule number three. Now, I've spent the least time in this video about that because that's what that's the one that most people spend most of their time on. I've seen people spend 80, 90 percent on what they're going to do. They don't spend anywhere near enough time on the other rules. So I'd say you should spend probably 5 percent on the who you're going to convince thinking about the panel. That's just not at the start. That's also at the end. Once you've written your grant, go back and reread it, thinking about it from the point of view of each of those different types of people who might be on the panel or the different assessors and from all those different perspectives. Then I would say 25 percent on the problem. Now, that doesn't mean that 25 pages out of 100 pages on a proposal, for example, needs to be dedicated to the problem. But I'm saying here 25 percent of your effort. So I really think it's important. Do not underplay the problem. Don't assume the panel already know what the problem is. Invariably, they won't. So this is something I think really important and not enough people spend the time on it. I would say golden rule number four is very important as well. You want to give the impression that you are the people to do this grant, the right people to do this grant. I think you should spend 10 percent of your time on this. All the way through your grant proposal, you can be putting in sentences. You know, in other work we have also done, we have seen these things that gives the impression to the reader that you've done a whole lot more work than just what they're seeing in the grant proposal. You can use other phrases that make it seem that you or make it clear, I should say, that you are the expert. So these numbers don't add up to 100 because, of course, there's going to be admin. You need to do the budget. You need to do CVs, all the other sorts of things with admin. But I would really recommend you keep this to a minimum, this admin side of it. Again, I've seen people where they spend a lot of time on all the technical details of the administrative side of the grant proposal. They are important. No doubt they're important. But what's going to get you over the line is the other aspects, is the four golden rules. So if you found this video helpful, good luck with your grant proposal. Wish you all the best and all the best success. Of course, like the video, it helps others to find it. Subscribe to the channel for more videos and you can check out the web page in the description below. You'll find a full categorized listing of all the videos on the channel.