A few months ago I found myself at an event where we did an improv exercise to combat the post-lunch slump. In addition to helping everyone stay awake after a tasty meal, the goal of the activity was to show the power of communication.
The only problem was that my improv partner was a retired academic.
The first activity we were given was simple: one person said “One”, the other person said “Two”, and then it was back to the original person to say “Three”. You were then meant to keep alternating back and forth.
I started: “One.”
He then said, “Taxi!”
At least that’s what I heard in the hum of the auditorium.
I tried again. “One?”
“Taxi!”
I must have looked incredibly confused (because I was). He started laughing and looked smug: “It’s how you say ‘two’ in Finnish! They didn’t say we had to do it in English.”*
This little anecdote illustrates two incredibly common ways researchers can find themselves in hot water when writing a grant proposal.
First, there’s the exploitation of what they perceive as a loophole. In this case, he thought he was being clever by counting in another language. But doing something that doesn’t follow the letter OR the spirit of a funder’s guidance will see a proposal immediately rejected.
Second, there’s the failure to think about the person on the other side of the document. The purpose of the improv exercise was to demonstrate how communication relied on paying attention to the other person … but he was just focusing on his joke. I ended up feeling rather puzzled and not particularly enjoying what should have been a straightforward activity.
Meanwhile, a grant proposal should be as clear as possible, avoiding jargon, waffle, and woolly language. A proposal is not written for you, nor is it an IQ test. It’s not meant to show the reviewers that you know a lot of multi-syllable words or complex terminology. Instead, a proposal needs to guide the reviewer through your thought process. After all, it’s written for someone who hasn’t seen your proposed project before.
So, when it comes to writing grants, focus on clarity over cleverness. Keeping your reviewer in mind and making the proposal easy for them to understand will in turn make it easier for them to respond to your project with a positive evaluation. You don’t need to impress them with mental gymnastics; you need to connect with them. No surprises. No loopholes. And definitely no Finnish (unless it’s relevant).
* I looked it up later and “kaksi” is two in Finnish.