Please note: The ACEing Academia series was originally published on LinkedIn. Each category was represented by a suite from playing cards to reflect the “ACEing” theme, and each week ends with a brief review. Avoiding common errors in written communication is one of the simplest ways to boost the competitiveness of your grant proposal. This […]
ACEING ACADEMIA: Week 1 Review Read More »
During the first lockdown, I started playing around with Duolingo. I found it a helpful way to brush up on my Spanish, while also dabbling in Japanese, Korean, and Welsh. The takeaway from this? Learning another language is blooming difficult. This is why I am in awe of anyone who studies or works in anything
ACEING ACADEMIA #4: Avoid poor grammar and syntax Read More »
This probably seems obvious, but I feel the need to state it anyway: structure is a vital part of any writing you do. The entire document should have a structure that allows the reader to follow along from the introduction to the conclusion, with each section building on the one that preceded it. This is
ACEING ACADEMIA #3: Avoid unstructured paragraphs Read More »
The ACE in ACEingAcademia? It stands for Avoiding Common Errors. In the case of this current series, specifically errors in communication that can negatively impact the competitiveness of a grant proposal. The next tip might seem like a small thing, but it affects the clarity of a proposal (or paper). Avoid using unexplained acronyms (and
ACEING ACADEMIA #2: Avoid using unexplained acronyms (and abbreviations and initialisms) Read More »
The common errors I’ll be sharing as part of the ACEingAcademia series are grouped by topic—Content, Clarity, Structure, Style—but they’re not provided in any particular order. Life is too short to attempt to quantify the most common mistakes made in academic writing. Except for this one. I would be remiss if I didn’t start with
ACEING ACADEMIA #1: Avoid the Curse of Knowledge Read More »
When it comes to writing a competitive grant proposal, it’s less about knowing the “right” way to do things and more about avoiding common errors. Why? Because there are many different ways to be “right”. What works perfectly well for Project X is probably going to be less appropriate for Project Y. Meanwhile, mistakes look
ACEING ACADEMIA: An Introduction Read More »
The truth is that competitive proposals have three elements: A good idea. The novel research you intend to deliver needs to include a robust methodology and be genuinely feasible. Reviewers recognise that success is never guaranteed, but they need to have confidence that your project will deliver something of value if it is funded. Clear
MYTH #1: The only thing you need for a successful proposal is a good idea Read More »
Based on the proposal drafts I have seen over the years, there is a general belief that they are intended to be read by someone who is exactly like the applicant. Cognitive biases are systematic errors in thinking or judgement. For example, the confirmation bias is one in which people will seek out information that
MYTH #2: You are writing a proposal for yourself Read More »
Funders are known for producing reams of guidance documents and bottomless websites that practically need a degree in archaeology to be properly excavated. In the best-case scenario, the guidelines are skimmed. Worst case? They’re ignored. Yet doing so will practically guarantee a problem with your proposal. Take the formatting guidance. Using the wrong font type
MYTH #3: Guidance documents are optional Read More »
Shakespeare wrote that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet: its characteristics remain intrinsically unchanged regardless of what it is called. While this may be true in botany, it’s inaccurate when it comes to funding. This is perhaps one of the biggest myths along the path to funding success. I have seen
MYTH #4: All proposals should be treated in the same way Read More »
I highlighted that understanding the funding system you’re operating in is an element of a competitive proposal back in the very first myth of this series. One of the reasons this is so important can be seen in a myth in that it seems un-mythlike: of course the funder picks who gets the funding. It’s
MYTH #5: The funder decides who gets funded Read More »
I am halfway through sharing the most common funding myths, and I have found that number six is a belief that many people don’t like to let go of. However, there are a few things that tip this statement into the myth zone. First, 1-6 is not a score, at least not in a traditional
MYTH #6: The 1-6 score on the review determines how a proposal does at panel Read More »