From rejected to accepted

Transcription

1 FACULTY OF HUMANITIES UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN From rejected to accepted Learning from successful FKK individual postdoc applications 2012 Research Support / June 2013

2 Contents Introduction 3 1. Profile 4 2. Experiences 5 3. Application changes following rejection 6 4. Variations 8 5. Guide and checklist 12 Links and references 13 Appendix A Statistics 14 Appendix B Questionnaire 16 2

3 Introduction Objective This report is intended for use by future postdoc applicants for the Danish Council of Independent Research Humanities and research support staff involved with supporting these applicants. Background In a grant application process, as in any hard competition, questions, myths and rumours can be hard to distinguish from facts and genuinely good advice. It is our experience that this is also true for early career researchers. The present analysis springs from a desire to be able to transfer some of former applicants sometimes hard-earned experiences to future applicants and their support staff in a brief, structured and factual way. Scope The bulk of this report consists of short anonymized application excerpts. While applicants main objective remains to develop a strong research idea and a suitable project plan, which is not covered in this report, the issues that are highlighted herein cover only a subset of the factors that contribute to the final decision of who are offered a grant. However, it is our experience that developing the presentation of the idea and plan can strengthen a strong project in the competition. This experience is supported by the fact that 86% of the successful applications included in this analysis were resubmissions. The excerpts that are given are chosen to exemplify changes and variations in form and structure that we observed, both between versions of the same application and different successful applications. We hope that this report thus can serve as a catalogue of ideas and support future applicants in their work on how to present their own project proposals. Procedure The data of this analysis was collected between January and February Successful applicants were contacted by phone or and asked to submit their successful application along with any previously rejected versions. At the same time participants were asked to answer six questions about their subjective experience with applying for the postdoc. The questions are included in Appendix A. For the statistical description we included information about all FKK-individual postdoc applicants from 2012 at the faculty and all FKK-individual-postdoc recipients Where available, we also included some information from the CV of successful applicants in the statistical description. Structure The content is divided into five main sections and two appendices. The first covering 1) applicants profile based on the group of successful applicants (the basic statistics are detailed in appendix A), followed by an overview of applicants reported experiences with the application process (the questionnaire is reproduced in appendix B). The third section describes how previously rejected applications were changed in response to the rejection letter along with examples of reasons for rejection. In the fourth section we give more general examples of variations of successful applications. The fifth section takes the form of a combined guide and a checklist intended to assist applicants reviewing and revising a (nearly) finished application. 3

4 1. Profile In applicants from the Faculty of Humanities at UCPH applied for 76 FKK individual postdoc grants. In response 14 grants were received at the faculty, which is equivalent to almost one in four of the applicants (24%) and a little less than one in five of the applications (18%) receiving a grant. In comparison, the overall success rate for these grants was between one in ten and one in seven (10-14%). Of the successful applications, 12 were improved versions of previously rejected applications to the same council and/or the Carlsberg foundation. A very large number of the successful HUM applicants (6 of the 14) also received the extra Sapere Aude grant which is awarded to excellent young postdoc applicants to help strengthen their research career. Gender and age Note that it is a very small sample why all differences may be attributtable to random variation. The proportion of female applicants is about 40%, and although the female applicants appear to have submitted slightly more applications per applicant, the proportion of awarded grants to male and female researchers mirrors the proportion of applicants gender. (See details in appendix A) More than half of the successful applicants were younger than 35 and more than two thirds of the grants were awarded within 18 months of acquiring the PhD. This reflects that the individual postdoc grant is intended for early career researchers. Male grant recipients are on average one year younger and receive the grant 10 months closer to their PhD graduation than female researchers. Parental leave may be an influential factor, but this was not investigated. DFF subtracts military and parental leave (after obtaining the PhD degree) from applicants PhD age. Academic careers Eleven of the successful applicants submitted their CV for this analysis. 80% of them listed some form of academic affiliation (exam, employment, field trip or research visit) in their CV while just half of them listed academic employments before or after their PhD. Academic exams were a mix with almost 30% having only exams from UCPH and just as many having only international exams. A little less than 20% reported a mix of Danish and international exams and a similar number did not submit CV s for the analysis. The strong representation of candidates with former connections to UCPH 1 may be a consequence of many factors such as familiarity with the local research environment and the organisation. No specific career plan can be considered as a requirement for obtaining a grant. 1 50% have at least one exam from UCPH 4

5 2. Experiences Twelve of the 14 grant recipients answered six subjective questions about their experiences with the application process. The questions are included in appendix B. Groups of answers are shown below, with the number in parenthesis signifying how many respondents expressed the particular experience. Red highlight points that were more generally expressed (5 or more), orange is for an intermediary number (3-4) and green are less frequent experiences (1 or 2). From Questions about what constituted difficulties and help The only two reported stopping blocks were: Not having finished the PhD in time for the application round (1) Having received advice to dumb it down (1) The hardest part: Choosing (1), developing (2) and formulating (4) the idea. Finding the time to write the application (1) Staying motivated (2) Nothing really (2) Reported sources of assistance: Feedback from peers (and/or supervisor), both on text and oral presentations (10) Budget support and feedback on application formulation from research support staff (6) From question about what applicants found to be the strongest points of their own application: (each respondent reported 0 5 reasons) Timeliness, sex appeal, relevance (5) Intuitively good idea/subject (3) Strong international collaborations (3) Clearly confined project/subject (3) Strong integration between theory and methodology (3) Ambitious and with a clear outcome (2) Adhering to criteria/addressing the specific council (2) Interdisciplinarity (1) Impressive CV (1) Three respondents responded that they found the council s evaluation criteria to be obscure. From questions about how much time was spent on the individual application parts and overall (Here the colours signals the time spent days: green, weeks: orange, months: red) Time spent on developing the idea into a final application: 1 3 months, but the idea may be older Time spent on reworking the application after a rejection: 1 week to 2 months, working on the same idea Time spent on writing the application text: 2 8 weeks Time spent on developing the budget: 2 5 days (With help from research support staff) Other activities in the application process: Arranging research stays and collaborations (2 7 days) Brainstorming ideas and editing the CV 5

6 3. Application changes following rejection Of the 12 successful applicants who had previously had their application rejected, 7 respondents submitted a rejection letter and/or an elaborated rejection letter for the present analysis. This section first presents commented excerpts from the letters in their original Danish wording and English translations. Secondly the observed changes in applications are exemplified. Rejection letters The first example is from the most positive type of rejection letter: Selvom rådet finder det ansøgte projekt støtteværdigt [ ] faldt i rådets prioritering [ ] især på grund af --- Even though the council finds the project worthy of support [ ] fell in the council s priorities [ ] especially because of --- This phrase states that the project is essentially good enough to be funded and that it may have been put on a waiting list in case other applicants choose to decline a grant. Otherwise the application should be polished, updated and resubmitted for the following deadline. Rådet beklager [ ] ikke har kunnet imødekommes [ ] finder det beskrevne projekt spændende og interessant [ ] (alt. nyskabende ) The council regrets [ ] could not be met [ ] finds the described project exciting and interesting [ ] (alt. innovative) These examples of rejection letters reflect that the proposed project has some of the necessary qualities to be funded, although more work is needed on some aspects. The letters then proceed to state one or more aspects that were not sufficiently developed. In these cases in particular it may be of great help to request an elaboration on the reason for rejection. Such an elaboration can include detailed arguments and comments on very particular parts of the project, or it may simply reformulate the initial rejection letter without adding further details. The following excerpt is from such an elaborated response to one applicant: Rådet efterlyser en bedre redegørelse for det forslåede projekts selvstændige karakter i forhold til ph.d.-projektet. The council calls for a better explanation of the proposed project s independent nature in relation to the PhD project. While each letter may at first glance sound somewhat standardized and uninformative, all rejection letters did provide an individual reason for rejection. In the 7 rejection letters that were submitted for this analysis, the council asked applicants to do one or more of the following: Specify and delimit the research question. Explain how research questions are to be answered. Explain methodological or theoretical basis. Explain connection between theoretical basis and empirical work. Choose more relevant sources or argue more convincingly for the [named] chosen sources. 6

7 Define the [named] key concept in the context of the project. Explain how the project differs from the PhD project. Attach a summary or evaluation of the PhD dissertation. Examples of changes In the examples below capitalized words and letters in square brackets represent generalized parts of the text that were originally field- or project specific. Parenthesized grey text is translated from Danish original text. Text in bold face is from the successful version of the application. In all 7 cases where we had the rejection letter and both versions of the project, we found that every applicant responded to or incorporated the feedback. This section gives anonymized examples of such changes. The revised project proposals all address the original problem in largely the same way as the original proposal. The observed changes fall in a continuum from simply varying how the project is communicated to changing parts of the project design. To address feedback regarding lack of specified methodology, a project was restructured from two hypotheses to three sub-studies. This allowed for three separate presentations of specific types of data along with both a chosen methodology and a theoretical connection to the overall project. The example below shows how the new text reflects the actions that are to be taken as a result of the theoretical standpoint: Original: Hypotesen lyder at [PROCES] førte til [TILSTAND]. [ ] Det kan formodes, at [PROCES] var en væsentlig årsag til [TILSTAND]. (The hypothesis states that [PROCESS] led to [STATE] [ ] It can be assumed that [PROCESS] was a significant cause of [STATE]) Delundersøgelsen vil klarlægge [TILSTAND], der på sigt fulgte [PROCES] [ ] [TILSTAND] vil blive undersøgt ved hjælp af (The sub-study will explain [STATE] which in the long term accompanied [PROCESS] [ ] [STATE] will be studied using ) To address feedback regarding the difference between the PhD dissertation and the proposed project, the following section was added to the proposal. My PhD-thesis mentions the possibility of [TERM-1] in connection with [TERM-2] accompanying the demise of [TERM-3], but the hypothesis has by no means been fully developed, nor substantiated by empirical evidence. The subject of my PhDthesis was the development of [TERM-4] in [TERM-5]. Without this explicit information, the reader would be required to draw the inference from comparing the thesis resume to the proposal. Below is an example of a very subtle way of responding to feedback regarding the specification and delimitation of the research question. Original: Here one must distinguish [TERM-1] from what one might call [TERM-2]. [ELABORATION] Analyzing these [DATA], I seek to uncover how [TERM-2] is related to [TERM-1] from the very beginning. -> Against the background of these discussions, I distinguish [TERM-1] from what 7

8 we might call [TERM-2]. [ELABORATION] In addition to the above change, the applicant also changed the focus of the concluding section of the application, which addresses the research plan, the qualifications of the applicant and the research network: Original: Their outstanding library will be a tremendous resource, especially for [PROJECT]. Moreover, a number of professors, particularly [NAME], will be very interesting conversation partners on this topic. Returning to Copenhagen in early [YEAR], I will devote myself exclusively to writing [END] -> The academic milieu and the outstanding [LIBRARY] will be a tremendous resource for [PROJECT]. Were I fortunate to receive a Sapere Aude grant, I would like to use a part of it for an international conference on [SUBJECT] to be held in Copenhagen when I return from abroad. Otherwise, the last two semesters will be devoted to writing [END] The new version leaves the reader with a different impression of the applicant and whether this person is confident about how to tackle the project. 4. Variations In addition to addressing specific feedback from the council, applications tend to have been edited and changed in various ways, possibly reflecting feedback from peers, strengthened background knowledge or other external factors. The changes in general all leave the impression of contributing to a more concise and well developed reading experience. We observed all of the following revisions in resubmitted applications: Inclusion of theory, method and research questions in introduction. Re-ordering, re-wording and re-weighting of sections. Lists of activities changed to explanatory prose. Prose explanations of outcome changed to lists Research plan split into three sub-paragraphs, one following each key study Research plan simplified and joined into one separate section Below are anonymized examples of changes that were not addressing specific feedback from the council. In the examples capitalized words and letters in square brackets represent generalized parts of the text that were originally field- or project specific. Parenthesized grey text is translated from Danish original text. Text in bold face is from the successful version of the application. The examples below are bringing the contrasts of the proposed project closer together or highlighting them either by pointing it out: Contrary to traditional approaches where [A], a key concept of my approach is [B] Or by adding detail: Original: The [METHOD-A] investigation will consist in a comparison of [METHOD-B] 8

9 analyses of [DATA-1], [DATA-2], and [DATA-3] material respectively. I will carry out the [METHOD-B] analyses as investigations into the relevant [TERM-1] (see section [X]) in different contexts in order to compare the usage patterns of these [TERM-1]. This will allow me to identify the [TERM-2] differences between these [TERM-1], even the subtle ones, and set up the [TERM-3] for each stage of development. Finally, I will contrast the [TERM-4] structures of the three [TERM-5] stages in order to provide an overall description of the development. Or simply by adding emphasis: Original: en af de historiske begivenheder ( one of the historical events ) -> en skelsættende historisk begivenhed ( a landmark historical event ) The following is from a pair of applications where the new project description thoroughly clarified both theoretical and methodological approaches as well as the structure and content of the resulting monograph. In addition, the empirical material was extended (from 2 to 3 cases) and the tangible outcomes reduced (2 short films removed): Original: Da konceptet som idé og praksisform(er) udgør så spændstigt og dialogisk et arbejdskoncept, at de specifikke resultater i felten i reglen vil være yderst individuelle, kan konceptet dog lige såvel føre til skabelsen af de [GENSTANDE], som [INTERESSENTER] i dag efterstræber [REFERENCE]. Netop dette åbne spillerum af farer og potentialer, parret med det forhold, at konceptet for længst har vundet indpas i [FELTET], understreger vigtigheden af, at det underkastes en grundig humanvidenskabelig belysning. (Since the concept as an idea and practice form(s) constitutes such a supple and dialogic working concept that the specific results in the field usually will be highly individual, the concept can just as well lead to the creation of the [OBJECTS], as [STAKEHOLDERS] today pursue [REFERENCE]. This very open game of hazards and potential, coupled with the fact that the concept has long since gained ground in [THE FIELD], stresses the importance that it undergoes a rigorous humanistic scientific review.) -> Formålene med post.doc-projektet vil være at give en samtidshistorisk belysning af konceptet og de hermed forbundne nybrud, og siden betænke de faginterne og fageksterne følger af en mere proaktiv, kommercielt orienteret [KONCEPT]: Hvad er konceptet produkt af og udtryk for? Hvilke positive og negative følger kunne konceptet få for [FELTET] på den ene side, og for de [GENSTANDE], hvori det omsættes, på den anden side? Endelig vil projektet på denne baggrund diskutere alternativer til konceptet i dets nuværende form. (The objectives of the postdoctoral project will be to give a contemporary historical illustration of the concept and the related breakthroughs, and subsequently take into consideration the field-internal and field-external consequences of a more proactive, commercially oriented [CONCEPT]: What is the concept the product and expression of? What positive and negative consequences could the concept get for [THE FIELD] on the one hand, and for the [OBJECTS] in which it is realized on the other hand? Finally the project will on this basis discuss alternatives for the concept in its present form.) 9

10 The excerpt illustrates how the application was changed from an engaging essayistic discussion into a detailed programme for the planned research project. Below is an example of an opening statement that was changed to include more details from the project. The communication of the project is strengthened with this small change that prepares the reader more thoroughly and functions as an effective abstract. Original Revised [PROPOSE] a 2½-year individual postdoctoral project that explores [SUBJECT] in order to broaden our understanding of the implications of their pervasiveness. The project is part of a number of international networks and aims to lay the foundation for an ERC Starting Grant. [PROPOSE] a three-year individual postdoctoral project on [SUBJECT]. By focusing on the three thematic complexes [THEME-1], [THEME-2] and [THEME- 3] in [FIELD] the project aims to explore the implications of the pervasiveness of what the project proposes to call [TERM]. The main outcome of the project will be the publication of a monograph. Furthermore, the project aims to lay the groundwork for a larger interdisciplinary collaborative funding application, developed in conjunction with the research networks in which the project is embedded. This type of editing may be easier to work on during final revisions or when incorporating feedback from peers. The structure of the text can be altered to highlight specific parts of the project and to build argument structure. One applicant decided to change the order and framing of sub-sections in the following way: Original: Synopsis Key issue 1: Interdisciplinary field Traditional methodology/background Key issue 2: Methodology New methodology Future challenges Plan Synopsis Traditional methodology/background Key issue: Methodology New methodology New interdisciplinary context and challenges Strategy and plan All applicants used titled sub-sections for structuring their project description. The plan of the project can be illustrated graphically, presented in list or tabular form, or described in prose. The level of detail varies, but in all circumstances the plan serves to demonstrate that the project is well structured and that the applicant will know how to begin, advance, and finish the project successfully. 10

11 The example below shows a project plan in the form of a Gantt-like diagram with 6 months cofinanced salary for teaching. Typically each block or item is also mentioned or explained in the project description, directly or indirectly January June July December January June July December January June Data collection and analysis Conference organization Preparing publication Teaching Teaching Similarly, expensive items on the budget are sometimes briefly explained in the project description as illustrated below: Original and Udgangspunkt for beskrivelsen af [EMNE] er [METODE ANVENDT PÅ DATA]. For at kunne gennemføre systematiske og sammenlignende analyser af de tre [EMNER] søges der inden for det foreliggende projekt om et forholdsvis stort beløb til TAP (ca DKK) til en konvertering af [DATA] fra [FORM-A] til [FORM-B]. [FORM-B] muliggør [METODE] og dermed en differentiering mellem [TERM-1] og [TERM-2]. En omarbejdning til [FORM-B] vil betyde en vedvarende sikring af data og muligheden for fortsat at arbejde med [FORM-B], også ud over dette specifikke projekt. (The starting point for the description of [SUBJECT] is [METHOD APPLIED ON DATA]. In order to implement systematic and comparative analyses of the three [SUBJECTS] a relatively large amount for TAP (around DKK) is applied for within this project for the conversion of [DATA] from [FORM-A] to [FORM-B]. [FORM-B] enables [METHOD] and thus differentiates between [TERM-1] and [TERM-2]. A recasting to [FORM-B] will mean a permanent protection of data and the ability to continue to work with [FORM-B], even beyond this specific project. 11

12 5. Guide and checklist Use the assessment criteria stated in the call. 1. The criteria, in the form of a list of questions, represent your reader and can be used for developing the text of the application. 2. Does your application address the questions in a clear and accessible way? 3. Are there some questions that you need to address before you can address other questions, and does the structure of your application respect those dependencies? Use peers with expert knowledge and without 1. Ask fellow researchers for feedback on the entire application to get an impression of how your text as a whole is received. 2. Researchers from other fields and non-researchers can help identify which key concepts should be explained in order to make the proposal accessible to non-expert readers. 3. Consider to ask for feedback on your idea from your head of department or international collaborators when you consult them about hosting your project or a research visit. If they only want to read a short description of the project you can include the introductory section of the application which should function as an abstract. 4. Ask a curious friend in research for feedback on your expense budget. Does your project description and plan answer the questions that your peer poses? 5. We recommend that you always ask politely, accept a no, and thank your readers for their time and effort no matter what response you receive Use administrative support 1. Pay attention to local deadlines and rules 2. Get an early preliminary approval from your hosting department 3. Ask for co-funding opportunities at your hosting department and consider how you would like to contribute work to the department in return 4. Get feedback on your budget in time to incorporate new, expensive ideas 5. If you are in doubt, get feedback on application formalities 12

13 Links and references Updated June The research support team at the Faculty of Humanities, UCPH, can be contacted at: Information about the DFF individual postdoctoral grants: The very useful FAQ for DFF calls: The analyses were carried out by academic officer Sigrid Klerke 13

14 Appendix A Statistics At HUM 76 applications for FKK individual postdoc grants were handled in These applications were authored by 59 applicants, of whom 14 applicants were offered a grant. This corresponds to a success rate of 24% for the individual applicants and 18% for the applications. Furthermore, 6 of the 14 successful applicants (43%) also received an SA grant which is awarded to excellent, young researchers to help strengthen their career. Of the 14 successful applicants, 12 had submitted earlier versions of their idea to the same council and/or the Carlsberg foundation at an earlier point and had had it rejected. This section provides statistics on the most basic characteristics of the successful applicants. Gender and age Success + SA Success Applications Applicants % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Male Female 2 5 HUM recipients Other recipients 8 9 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Male Female Note: The above statistics on the right were collected after one recipient from HUM declined the FKK grant in favor of another grant. 6 4 The proportion of female applicants is about 40%, and although these applicants appear to have been slightly more productive, the proportion of awarded grants to male and female researchers mirrors the proportion of applicants gender. Note that it is a very small sample why differences may be attributed to random variation. 8 Age (years) PhD Age (months) Age PhD-age Average 35 years 17 months Diff. F - M 1 year 10 months Notes: These statistics were not controlled for parental or military leave. The age of one recipient is not reported. More than half of the successful applicants were younger than 35 and more than two thirds of the grants were awarded within 18 months of acquiring the PhD. This reflects that the individual postdoc grant is intended for early career researchers. Male grant recipients are on average one year younger and receive the grant 10 months earlier than female researchers. Again, note that this is a very small sample why differences may be attributed to random variation. 14

15 Academic careers Scientific career until time of application Academic exams % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% UCPH only International only Mix (UCPH, DK & International) Unknown Scientific employment International affiliation % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% yes no unknown The academic background reflects a diverse mix where half of the successful applicants have at least one academic exam from UCPH and half have at least one academic exam from a non-danish university. Including activities other than exams, 70% of the applicants have some form of affiliation to an academic environment outside Denmark listed in their CV. Half of the applicants have also had one or more scientific employments other than their PhD. These figures underline that there are no rules of thumb regarding career paths of applicants. The strong representation of candidates with former connections to UCPH may be a consequence of many factors such as familiarity with the local research environment and the organisation. 15

16 Appendix B Questionnaire Below are the questions that were used for subjective assessment of the successful applicants experiences with the application process. 1) Var der noget i ansøgningsprocessen som du savnede (mere) hjælp til? 1) Was there anything in the application process that you missed (more) help with? 2) Hvad oplevede du som det sværeste igennem hele forløbet? 2) What did you experience as the most difficult throughout the process? 3) Hvem/hvad hjalp dig og hvem/hvad udgjorde stopklodser undervejs i ansøgningsprocessen? (hvis nogen/noget) 3) Who/what helped you and who/what were the obstacles in the application process? (if anyone/anything) 4) Ca. hvor lang tid tog det at udvikle projektidéen til en færdig ansøgning? 4) Approximately how long did it take to develop the project idea into a complete application? 5) Ca. hvor lang tid brugte du på 1) budget, 2) ansøgningstekst og 3) andet? 5) Approximately how long time did you spend on 1) budget, 2) application text and 3) other? 6) Har du selv en idé om hvad der gjorde din ansøgning bedre end de andres? 6) Do you have an idea of what made your application better than the others? 16