Grant writing is hard because the funder is asking for A LOT of information but usually sets very strict word/page limits, requiring you to be exceptionally precise and concise in your writing. You’re trying to sell how great both you and your project idea is, while also ensuring you include all the other information they want around potential impact, risk assessments, and career development plans. You need to strike the right balance in terms of how much detail you provide and ensure that every single sentence in the grant application serves a purpose. There is no room for fluff.  

 

Having now been through a couple of these applications, I have provided an overview of the many mistakes I have made in the hope that you can learn from my errors and save yourself time (and heartbreak)!  

 

General advice: 

1. Start reaching out to potential mentors early. You need to form a relationship with them and will likely need to have a few weekend/ evening email exchanges, especially in the lead up to the submission deadline. You also need to make sure you have a contact in the host university as they will need to approve and endorse your application. Finding the right people and building the relationship takes time so start early.  Just an additional point on other project collaborators, e.g., NHS, business or industrial collaborators, NGOs, etc. Having these types of partners on a grant can really strengthen your application, BUT they can take a LOT of work and a lot of it is last minute. In my last application, I only got their sign-off the day before the grant was due. Start making those links well in advance (like 6+ months out) of the due date. 
2. Ensure you get someone external to review the grant, ideally someone who also is familiar with the grant process. It can be incredibly helpful to have a new set of eyes on your work. You might think everything is really clear, but they flag a section that needs more explanation. For large grants like the Marie Curie postdoc fellowship, there are National Contact Points who sometimes offer review services. You can also ask the host university research department to review it for you. Make sure you factor this Review > Feedback > Editing time into your writing timeline.  

 

Writing advice: 

• Avoid redundancies in your writing, you just don’t have the space e.g., “basic fundamentals”, “briefly summarise”, “new innovations”. 
• Delete useless intensifies. You want to sell your idea but also not be too dramatic e.g., “really”, “severely”, “certainly”.  
• Use simpler vocabulary. You are likely already talking about complex topics so keep your language as accessible as possible. You need the reviewer to actually understand what you’re trying to say.  
• Put action into words for added energy e.g., accomplished, succeeded, launched, streamlined.  
• Trim clauses and phrases. Again, you just don’t have the space to be dramatic.  
• Write shorter sentences. Long, rambling sentences are hard on our brains. Assume your reviewer has 100 applications, make your application stand out by giving them text that they enjoy reading and don’t have to work too hard to understand.  

 

Application form: 

• Hey, listen I get it, you have/almost have your PhD. You are a smart person and don’t need me to tell you to adhere to font size rules. But seriously, read the font size rules! Sometimes they are sneaky and the font size for written sections versus font size for tables and figures differ! So, make sure that you have the font type and size correct as it can make a huge difference in terms of the application’s page length.  
• In a similar vein, pay attention to margin sizes. I had a nightmare one time when I had FINALLY trimmed everything down to fit into the eight-page limit only to find my margins were too narrow. Margins can get messed up when you are working on the document online (e.g., SharePoint or Google Drive) and then download it. So double check on that prior to submission.  
• Last practical note on the application form. Although big funders are dishing out big grant pots ($$$), their online submission systems tend to be archaic. The process of actually uploading and submitting your document can be cumbersome so make sure you give yourself enough time to get familiar with the system and to get all your files uploaded before the submission deadline (I recommend uploading and being ready to submit at least a day early).  

 

OK, now let’s move into the actual grant sections. Obviously, these sections are going to vary slightly between grants, but in general you can apply this advice to most.  

 

Aim 

• Grant applications across the board are super competitive. You need to have a project aim that is going to have significant impact. What effect is your project going to have on the scientific community, on society, on the economy.  
• You need to show how this project isn’t a one off i.e., once the money runs out the project is shelved and so is your career. Think about the sustainability and scalability of the project. What is the game plan after this particular grant funding runs out? 

 

Innovation/ State of the Art 

I didn’t even know what ‘state of the art’ meant when I wrote my first grant application. It’s basically the section talking about what the current landscape is for your field, and how your project is going to advance the field. You need to clearly demonstrate the importance and novelty of your idea.  

 

Research Programme 

In this section, you are talking about the actual project i.e., what you are going to do and how you’re going to do it.  

• Most people lay this section out in work packages, milestones, and deliverables. It is clear then to refer back to things and link sections together. Usually presented in some form of table.  
• One piece of feedback I got was that I didn’t clearly indicate how much effort was required for each part of the project. In my latest grant application, I used a project management technique of ‘t-shirt sizing’ to state the effort required. E.g., Project management work package was medium, intervention work package was an extra-large etc.  
• Most grants require you to develop and submit a Gantt chart (i.e., a timeline of the project). You need to really think about this and be realistic. The time you propose to dedicate to each phase of project should be appropriate. Reviewers are just as likely to mark you down if you say you’re going to do too much or if you say you’re not going to do enough in the time you have allocated. In the Gantt chart, try to section it by work package and also include milestones or key deliverables so that there is clear linkage across your application.   
• Things happen that are out of your control. But it is vital to show reviewers that you recognise these potential risks and have a mitigation or contingency plan in place to deal with them if they arise, e.g., low recruitment, dropout rates, global event like COVID-19.  

 

Communication / Dissemination / Exploitation 

This is the section showing how you are going to get your research out of the lab. How you are going to share it with other scientists in your field, how you’re going to communicate it with the public and other stakeholders, how you are potentially going to turn it into a business idea.  

• You need to cover the traditional methods like publications and conferences but go beyond this. They want creativity here and novel communication methods. E.g., public lecture series, podcasts, social media campaign etc.  
• The ‘exploitation’ piece can be difficult. So, you need to go and read up on what this means for your project and make sure you address it within your application. You need to be specific in what activities you will undertake to exploit the project’s results, be convincing and elaborate as much as you can within the space you have. E.g., can you develop a product prototype, can you present preliminary data to national policymakers, can you apply to a commercialisation fund.
• You need to clearly articulate the social, scientific and economic impact of the project. Usually, we do OK on the social and science parts but fall on the economic impact piece. Is your project going to save the government money? How? How much money? Can your project streamline certain processes and make them more efficient? Try to find some stats in your area to back up your claims.  

 

The Applicant 

• As mentioned in our Career Development Plan blog, you need to make sure that your training plan is described sufficiently. You need to make sure it is catered to your specific needs, is well-rounded, provides sufficient detail, and is realistic in the grant’s timeframe.  
• Give reviewers the confidence that you have your next steps planned for. Again, show you and the project’s sustainability and long-term game plan. Convince them that this isn’t a onetime thing and that you are going to take the necessary steps to either expand the project or use the skills you gained ot move onto your next career role.  

 

The Research Team 

You need to make it clear why you have selected your mentor and host institution. Clearly articulate what skills/resources/networks/experience they bring to the project and your development.  

 

 

Budget and Budget Justification 

• Make sure you present the budget in the format the funder wants it. Often, they will either have an online tool that you fill in or will give you a template to download.  
• Obviously, make sure the amount you are asking for is in line with the funding call. 
• Make sure the budget you are requesting is in line with the aim. Under budgeting can be just as bad as over budgeting so make sure you are realistic and how reviewers you have done your homework in terms of project expenses.  
• You usually have two documents for the budget section: the actual numerical budget and then a text document with the budget justification. For the budget justification, make sure you give information on everything you have in the budget. Be specific and give information and context to the numbers. Remember to cover things like salary (including pension!), materials, travel and publishing expenses, and any other direct costs.