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

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

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.

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

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

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

A key word that underpins much of proposal writing is balance. For example, it’s necessary to find the right balance between providing too many details (which can take up valuable space and overwhelm the reader) and not enough information (the reviewer is unable to determine if the idea is feasible

There is a little nuance to keep in mind before reading about the next myth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking at past proposals that have been funded. The problem comes when they’re treated as a template or viewed as the ONLY way to write a competitive proposal. There

Reading about this myth is going to solve climate change, eliminate poverty, and cure cancer. It will save the government trillions of pounds and help every man, woman, child, and dog in the country. It will revolutionise every area of research it touches and be considered better than sliced bread

Ctrl-C. Ctrl-V. These two commands can save loads of time, but there’s one place you should be cautious using them: your proposal. Space in a research council proposal is at a premium, and every section should be used as a way to demonstrate why your research should be funded. Repeating

Reviewers and funders tend to get all the blame for unsuccessful proposals. There is a standard litany of complaints: The funder picked reviewers from the wrong research areas. The reviewers didn’t understand the project. Were names picked from a hat? And so on. This brings us to the penultimate myth

This is it. The final funding myth that I’m sharing as part of this series, and the one that can unfortunately cause the most trouble. Throughout school, we’re indoctrinated with the idea that we should do our own work. This makes complete sense when it comes to avoiding cheating or