Department of History and Philosophy of Science

How to apply for a research grant

The contents of applications

It is easy to write a bad proposal, but once the basic parameters have been supplied it is also easy to write a very good one. The best way to learn successful technique is to look at examples of previously successful applications for funding. Normally, applications for research fellowships, postdoctoral positions, grants and so on have four parts: a CV, a covering letter, letters of recommendation, and sample publications.

Letters of recommendation

  • Ideally, these should be from someone well established and famous – but even so, referees should know something about the field, so that they can meaningfully tell the grant-giving body how you can contribute to the field.
  • Referees should see your research proposal well in advance.
  • It is within your rights to ask your proposed referees openly if they would be prepared to support you strongly.
  • Always send a copy of your application form to your referees, perhaps, if possible, with a photocopy of the advert or detailed specifics of the job.
  • You have to simultaneously charm the grant-giving body and your referees. The latter is often forgotten. Make sure you keep your referees happy. Sending them stamped addressed envelopes and ensuring you contact them well in advance of the deadline is important.
  • At certain times of the year, potential referees are swamped with such demands. Try to ensure that their writing of your recommendation will be as little work as possible.

Research proposal

The British Academy's instructions to applicants for their Postdoctoral Fellowship scheme state that:

the proposal should clearly specify the context, and research objectives of the study, describe the methodology to be used, and set out a realistic research programme for the three years of the fellowship.

Even when the instructions don't specify what a research proposal should consist of, these guidelines are sensible ones to follow.

  • It is always useful to write and work up a research proposal: it focuses the mind on what you want to achieve and do. Do you already know the relevant people? This is important if you are applying for funding.
  • It should be as detailed as possible and extremely clearly laid out, showing what is old and new research. Think of the evaluators, who will be spending probably no more than 15-20 minutes on each application.
  • You need to state why the project is important and what you see as your objectives.
  • You might use a distinction between primary and secondary objectives.
  • Remember that your proposal will be read by non-expert committee members as well as by an expert evaluator.
  • Follow any guidelines you are given and, above all, stay within the word limit!

Contents of the research proposal

  • Title
  • Introduction: Objectives. Using primary and secondary objectives can be useful. Keep it short: no more than one page.
  • The problem area (the historical period/actors, the philosophical problem): Explain in a way accessible to the non-expert. Try to make it sound interesting. Ensure you explain why further work is still needed in this area. Be specific on this: break it down into (a) importance and content, (b) earlier treatments, (c) desiderata.
  • The approach/tradition in which the project is undertaken: Where it stands now. New perspectives.
  • Your earlier work in the area of proposed research: Not always applicable, but if you have done work in the area, try to convince the referee that you are excellently prepared for this kind of work. Demonstrate continuity with your previous work. For example, the historical period of your proposed project may be new, but continuity can be established through your use of the same historiographical techniques, and so on. Demonstrate why the topic is important and emphasise what you will be saying about it that is new. Often, assessors will not know enough about the topic to be able to judge adequately how your project stands relative to earlier research.
  • Outline of the project: Even if this is somewhat fictitious, it gives the assessor the feeling that you are well under way. It is actually a good thing to have anyway.
  • Timetable: Assessors want to know what you are going to do with your time. If you want funding for three years, they want to see that three years will be neither too much nor too little. Mismatches between a project and its time period are a common query from assessors.
  • Location and cooperation: List the people you are working with! Indicating where you intend to research and those people in the field you have already established contact with will raise your credibility considerably.