3.1 Understanding the grant scheme
As mentioned in previous topics, there are many sources of research project funding. You need to find the one or ones that best fit your research, taking into account the strategic and opportunistic considerations that need to be an essential part of your longer-term thinking.
Some of the questions that you need to ask yourself when looking at a particular grant scheme will include the following:
- Are you, and your team members, eligible to apply?
- Does your project fit the aims of the scheme?
- If there are selection criteria, will you be able to address them all adequately?
- Can you provide all the necessary documentation?
- Do you understand what the funding agency will require of you and your project?
- Will the scheme fund the sort of items you require (e.g. salaries, equipment items, infrastructure costs, etc.)?
- Will the funding source be acceptable to your host institution (remember the tobacco policy example in Topic 2)?
- Are there any restrictive requirements, e.g. on publishing your findings?
- Will the funding agreement allow you to comply with all relevant university policies, e.g. intellectual property, code of conduct, etc.?
Just to focus on one of these points as an example, if your research project requires some highly specialised piece of equipment, you might look at the ARC's ‘Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities’ program. This provides funding for large cooperative initiatives so that expensive infrastructure, equipment, and facilities can be shared by researchers in partnered organisations. Some of the equipment for which funding was won in past rounds included a cellular image acquisition and analysis system; a video analysis suite for the integrative analysis of resource acquisition behaviour in animals; a facility for light metal powder processing; and phase two of the AustLit service for Humanities and Education researchers.
It can also be useful to look outside your traditional funding sources if you have already won research grants. For example, if you have only ever applied for an NHMRC grant because you are in a medical research field, look at the ARC for additional opportunities, perhaps teaming up with some 'non-medical' researchers.
Another thing to bear in mind is that you should not waste time applying for the impossible. This does not mean that you should abandon your aspirations, but you need to be realistic. There is no point in applying for grants in areas where you have no track record. (Refer back to Topic 2 and the 'building blocks' strategy.) Peer feedback is particularly useful in checking your likelihood of success.
One of the most simple things to remember, and perhaps so simple that it is often overlooked, is to read carefully the rules associated with any grant scheme to which you are applying. Failure to do so can easily lead to small errors with larger consequences. For example, if you apply for a grant to the National Institutes of Health (a US government agency), the funding rules require the application budget, requests for funds, and financial reports to be in US dollars. If you were to work out your costs in Australian dollars and failed to convert them in your submitted budget, you might (currently) end up with less funding than you anticipated. The rules also state that the NIH will not compensate foreign grantees for currency exchange fluctuations. While not possible to predict accurately, it does require some contingency planning, and you just need to be aware of these issues when you are considering applying to a particular grant scheme.
If it happens that your grant application fails to be approved at all, you should not simply abandon it. It is important to realise that a significant number of very good applications will not be funded, e.g. there was a 23.4% success rate for 2011 NHMRC Project Grants. The best approach is to save the submission, re-work it over time (with peer feedback if possible), and use it in your next application. Many a successful grant application is one that has been revised from a previous submission.
The next thing to look at is the actual funding. One of the painful lessons researchers soon experience when applying for research grants is discovering that grants do not cover 100% of the costs associated with a project. As an example of this, in the 2011 grant announcements for ARC Discovery Projects, the average funding per approved project for 2011 was only 55.3% of the average amount requested.
You will need to think about how you will address a reduction in funding relative to what you have requested. The response is certainly not to do more for less, as this can jeopardise your ability to achieve a high-quality outcome. You need to explore what can be done for what is offered, and rethink the scope of your proposal. This may mean revising your proposal in the light of the funding and informing the granting body.
Another possibility is to seek multiple funding sources to make up the shortfall (maybe consultancies) and building research networks. You should check university resources on the web, talk with business development managers within your organisation, etc. Knowing where to find these resources is an important aspect to being a research leader.
One of the sources that you may attempt to access is of course your own university, as they may well have some strategic research funds. However, it is important to point out that they do not have the fabled 'buckets of money' for you to use to solve the problems of the world. It is to be expected that universities will use their limited funds strategically, possibly focussing on support for emerging research areas, or early career researchers, or national research strengths with the potential to bring in more funds. One of the aspects that many universities may look for is the extent to which any funding provided can be used to leverage additional external funding, so again you may be looking for a package of funding.
Another aspect of the grant-funding process of which you need to take account is the fact that universities typically allocate some of the grant funds to central administration and some to faculties and/or schools. The flow-on to the individual will vary from university to university. This is necessary to cover the indirect costs or overheads of providing the infrastructure needed to support the research activity undertaken. This can include administration, physical plant operation, and maintenance, building use, electricity, and academic services such as the library and IT facilities. Different universities have different models of funding distributions.
You will need to be aware of this when preparing your proposal, so that you are not caught unawares. The infrastructure levy assists with the direct costs of supporting your project. These policies also ensure universities are fair in competing with external agencies, under the National Competition Policy. They place a fair value on the services that universities offer.
Modules