Margaret Sheil
Conducting scientific research is an expensive business. Cutbacks across the board to Universities and other research organisations such as CSIRO have increased the pressure on all staff to attract research funds from external granting bodies and industry; however, for new staff, and staff in institutions without a large research base, getting started in the "grant" game is very difficult. Without wanting to resort too much to traditional stereotypes it would be safe to say that there may be additional obstacles faced by women scientists trying to get going in this game.
Some factors that may affect women disproportionately include: a career interruption impacting on track record; higher teaching loads because more women hold contract and lower level positions; higher administrative loads because they sit on more committees to fulfil EEO requirements in areas were the women are under represented; women may be over represented in professional disciplines where there has not been a strong research training element, women may not be part of the "old boys network" that forms the basis of the peer review process; and finally, as the load on all staff increases across the board 'm response to funding cuts and finding time for research becomes increasingly difficult, it is likely that in some cases this will impact on women (especially those with young families) more so than their male colleagues.
The following is a summary of a presentation I made to the Women in Research Forum at the University of Wollongong in 1997, that was designed to provide some hints on increasing research output and advice on getting going (or improving success rates) 'm the research grant game. My apology in advance that this is overly biased towards researchers in Universities since this reflects my own experience, however, I hope that some of the advice will also be of value to researchers in other organisations.
A good starting point is your Research Office. They will have guidelines and information about all internal and external grant schemes, they may also hold seminars and workshops on different grant schemes. A comprehensive fist of national and international grants is also maintained in the SPIN data base on the internet at http://australia.infoed.org/Wconnect/wc.dll?spinwww jumpspin
Once you have information on the available grant schemes you need to decide where to focus your efforts. If you are inexperienced (and even if you are not) seek advice on which schemes are best at your University or in your discipline. In general grants can divided into three categories:
(i) Grants administered by the University (this can include internal project grants and ARC Small grants);
(ii) External Grants determined by Peer Review (this includes ARC Large, NHMRC and a range of other schemes);
(iii) External Grants determined by a Committee (e.g. applications for PhD scholarships under the ARC Strategic Partnerships with Industry or SPIRT scheme, ARC Research Infrastructure and Equipment Grants, some grants to smaller research grant bodies and charitable foundations).
The success rate for these schemes can vary considerably. If you are a new researcher you should have a much better chance of getting an internal grant than an external one (though the practice across institutions varies and not all will make considerations for new people or those with an interrupted career). The success rate for the SPIRT scheme is generally higher (>30%) than for ARC Large (<20%) and NHMRC (20-30%), partly because SPIRT requires a partner who you need to convince first to make a commitment before applying.
Schemes that are peer-reviewed (ARC, NHMRC etc.) have lower success rates overall and can be especially difficult if you are just starting out. The reviewers and the overseeing committee will assess your track record and you may not even make it past the first cull if you have few or no recent publications. So rather than jumping in at the deep end and trying for an ARC Large grant as your first attempt, your time may be used more productively by focussing on schemes with a higher likelihood of success and/or other strategies to get a few runs on the board (taking study leave in established lab, working with another research group etc.).
Therefore if you are just starting out I would suggest you focus on: internal University project grants, ARC Small Grants and ARC SPIRT grants for a PhD scholarship. The University project grants and ARC Small grants are generally decided by a University Committee (though a small number of Universities send ARC small grants out for external review). If you are only applying to an the SPIRT scheme for a PhD scholarship only, that is decided by the committee. To apply for the latter you need a contribution from "industry" of $5,000 pa in cash and $5,000 pa "in kind". Industry is loosely defined and also includes government organisations and NG0s that are not funded directly for research (e.g. the Department of Fisheries may be an eligible partner but CSIRO is not).
The first rule of the game is to look critically at the project. Is it derivative (i.e. have you heard of someone doing something interesting with one system and you are simply planning to do the same but with a system of more interest to you or worse, are you trying to do the same thing as someone else in your area or your last boss)? Is it likely to lead to key advances in the field? For ARC funding the project must lead to a "significant conceptual advance". What is the broad significance of the project, does it have wider implications than simply obtaining information (the latter may be characterised as "stamp collecting"). How can the information and/or method be used in other areas?
Failing to properly address the question of the significance of the research is where many research grants (from both new and established researchers) fail. There is a tendency to get buried in one's own subject area and not think of the broader implications of your research. Hence while it may be perfectly obvious to you why we need to know the precise details of the mechanism that causes guinea pigs to shiver when they are cold, unless this can be related to the treatment of frostbite in humans or help to conserve native guinea pigs it is unlikely to. be funded. A good test is to try and explain what you want to do and why it is important to your mother, spouse or next door neighbour; if they think it sounds worthwhile then maybe the committee will. The significance needs to be clear in the first page (remember the reader may be plowing through a large number of proposals).
For a one year project can it be really done in one year? (Is it too ambitious or does it not represent enough work?) Similarly will the work for a three year grant realistically take ten years etc. So before you start get some advice on the project from a more experienced researcher, bounce your ideas off a colleague or friend and try and have a look at some successful grant proposals to see how they tackled the problem.
Know your audience. For peer reviewed schemes you are writing for two audiences, a committee that may have some expertise within your broad discipline and the reviewers who will be experts in your particular field. For this audience you need to be on top of the literature and have chosen a really significant question. For all schemes the first criterion for success is that the grant is intelligible to those outside your own narrow field (and even your own discipline). Avoid jargon, use footnotes to expand or explain points to avoid interrupting the flow.
Where you are writing for a broad-based committee you can afford to sacrifice some rigour in favour of expanding on key points to make them understandable. Put the project in the context of the overall field. The grant should make it clear who else is or has worked in this area, why is your approach novel, more likely to work etc. (remember the reader probably doesn't know this, especially if they are outside your discipline area, so you need to make it clear) For internal and ARC Small grants the committee may be looking to see if the grant is likely to lead to more grants (especially external ones) in the future so put the project in the context of an overall research strategy (including support for students and plans for obtaining external funding).
Address your track record. Many schemes give a score for both the project and your track record and many specify that this is assessed in relation to opportunity. So include a statement highlighting your track record in relation to your research opportunities even if the guidelines don't ask for it. (e.g. career interruption, change of direction etc.) Never say explicitly that you didn't do any research, couch it in a more positive light e.g. heavily involved in establishing new course, new area etc. so output reduced during that period. Don't try and artificially inflate your track record by including manuscripts m preparation and unrefereed conference papers etc. Experienced readers will see straight through that. I typically include a line amongst my publication listing in between the publications for the year I was on maternity leave pointing this out so that the reason for my publications being fewer in that year is obvious.
Don't artificially inflate the budget. Ask for what you need and provide a clear justification (give exact figures, provide quotes so the reviewers are aware that you have costed it carefully). Don't make the assumption that the budget will be cut anyway as it more than likely will go against you if you ask for more than you need.
Presentation is important. Highlight the really important points (boxes, dot points, italics etc), include diagrams and schemes to break up the text where possible. Don't try and squash it all in and/or make the font too small. Again try and get the really key points onto the first page.
Get someone to read through the grant. Ask a colleague to read the grant to check for errors and inconsistencies. Ideally you should have the grant read by someone close to your field to check for technical difficulties and someone outside the field to ensure that it is intelligible and that the significance is clear. If it fails the first time, get some feedback and try again.
Make research a priority (learn to say no to schools visits, useless committees, etc.) [this is the hardest but most essential element in playing the game]. Do you have a PhD? If not this must be a priority since you may be ineligible for certain funding schemes and may not be able to supervise postgraduate students. Find a mentor(s) e.g. HOD, Chair, Research Committee, successful friend, colleague at another University etc. Once you have found a good mentor you need to become a good mentee (i.e. be prepared to accept and act on criticism).
Is there an established research group at your institution or at another one in close proximity to which you could contribute? You may have skills that they could use or be prepared to learn a new area that would be of value to them. Joining an established group can enable you to do research and improve your track record without the need to obtain external funding immediately.
Are you a good teacher? If so can you attract good Honours students who then may stay on for a PhD if they are awarded an Australian Postgraduate Award or University Scholarship. Be selective, good students are "free hands" for research, poor students may simply use up more of your valuable time. Are your Research Interests listed in Departmental publicity (Honours or Research Brochures, postgraduate handbooks, web pages etc.)?
Finally, don't get discouraged if one of your grant proposals fails, even the most experienced researchers don't get everything they apply for and generally you will find that people with a lot of grants have applied for lots more. Good luck.
Associate Professor Margaret Sheil is Chair of the Faculty of Science Research and Postgraduate Committee at the University of Wollongong and a member of the Executive Committee of the University Research Committee. She has been successful in obtaining ca. $1.9 million in external funding over the last 5 years mcluding grants from ARC Large, ARC RIEFP, ARC Collaborative (or SPIRIT) schemes and grants and funding from charitable foundations and industry. She currently leads a research group comprising 2 Postdocs, 6 PhD and 2 Honours students focussing on the development and application of analytical instrumentation (especially mass spectrometry) for the study of biological problems.