MYTH #2:  You are writing a proposal for yourself

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 reinforces their existing beliefs and ignore evidence that contradicts such beliefs.

A common cognitive bias that many researchers suffer from is known as the Curse of Knowledge. This is the idea that once you know something, you forget what it’s like not to know it. In other words, you assume that other people already know what you know.

But the reality is that the reader cannot see inside your head. Your audience doesn’t know what you know, such as why your idea is important or how your methodology is feasible … unless you tell them. There is a need to make what is implicitly understood by you explicit for the reader.

On top of this, you can have multiple audiences for the same document, each of whom is looking for different information. For example, a standard EPSRC proposal has three audiences:

• Portfolio managers: They do not assess the quality or fundability of the project but instead ensure that it’s in the right place (with regards to council, theme, and research area) and determine who would make the most appropriate reviewers. Reviewers are chosen based on how the portfolio manager has interpreted what you’ve written in your proposal: ensure that you stay focused on the research areas, disciplines, or communities that you would like your reviewers to be drawn from.
• Reviewers: In turn, reviewers are assessing how well the proposal meets the assessment criteria. As the project leader, you need to make it clear within the proposal how your project meets the criteria: don’t assume it will be obvious to them. Checking your proposal against the reviewer form and guidance documents is a simple way to ensure you’ve included what’s needed.
• Panel members: Although they technically do not have to read a proposal (their evaluation is based on the reviewers’ comments and the PI response), panel members will usually skim the summary to better understand the project. As a result, it’s important to ensure the summary is understandable to someone who is not an expert in your area: writing it in plain English is the simplest way to make sure it’s understood.

There is no way to guarantee a funded grant application, but breaking the Curse of Knowledge and putting the reader front and centre is another way to take you one step closer to a competitive proposal.