Grant planning strategy
---------------------
Robbie Fordyce
02 July 2025
---------------------
On a resource that I’ve pulled together for planning out grant submissions.
---------------------
- Overview
- The template
- Problem one: showing the gap
- Problem two: scope creep
- Problem three: inconsistency
01. Overview
Developing a research grant in the Australian context is a challenging process, as it invovles managing multiple needs while also making sure you can meaningfully communicate a reasonable project idea. I’ve designed a grant planning template here, and the rest of this post is speaking primarily about using this template to overcome some issues that I think some people could avoid.
I have some relevant expertise - successful category 1 and 2 grants, and acting as a grant assessor for these spaces as well. In this sense, I think that this guide is probably more useful for an ECR doing their first grant application, and thinking through the challenges that might not be so obvious.
In covering this kind of work I’ve found a few areas where there are common problems in terms of some research grants that I think think could be prevented. Fixing this is as much a case of preventing it from arising rather than trying to fix it post factum, and the template hopefully helps to address these issues.
I’ve mapped out a few problems that I’ve noticed (I think I’ve been guilty of all of these at one point or another) and note how the template is supposed to address each one.
02. The template
Going through each of the columns in the template, these are:
- Problem: covering the key terms, the gap, the timeliness, and the story;
-
Process: covering the methodological aspects including RQs/aims, method(s), and innovation(s);
-
Framework: for drafting up the theoretical dimensions of the project. This is mostly for scribbling plans, ideas, visualisations as necessary.
-
Organisation: for drafting up the timelines, work packages, phases, etc.
- Resources: for noting anything that you’re going to need to get or make. This is not for developing an itemised budget or working out exact $$ requirements, but just to make sure you note the inputs and outputs you’ll need as you go.
The sections on Framework, Organisation, and Resources are primarily there to give you space to take notes, and make sure that you’re covering all your bases. These ideas will need to be fleshed out in significant detail elsewhere, but you’ll still want to know the general shape of these as you go through the other details.
03. Problem one: showing the gap
Your gap is a simple sentence that identifies a problem space that you’re going to study, and it does so in non-disciplinary terms that sets up the contribution that you’ll make. Making sure that the gap is really clear is a challenge for some people, and part of the problem is not getting to the point quickly enough. Your gap is going to be 1-3 plain-language sentences that could be understood by someone outside your discipline. The gap needs to be able to stand on its own, without requiring explanatory context or theoretical preamble. Ideally there should be nearly no jaron or terminology (whether disciplinary or technical) unless that terminology is central to what’s at stake.
I feel like the writing process that leads you to describing the gap adequately is a bit of a Zeno’s paradox, where a lot of work will only get you part way there. You’ll probably flip between adding in context that helps you understand what you think the gap is, before trimming it off and simplifying the language. Chances are you’ll go through this several times, refining and trimming things off quite a bit.
In using the template I’ve created, the gap is set aside from the story, and there is also the key word section. The task of working out the gap means in part identifying anything that is contextual and moving it to the story section, so the template is set up so that as the description of the gap balloons out, you can take any unnecessary context and shift this into the story section.
On the template the story and gap sections are about the same size, partly because you’re probalby already confident about the story and only need short notes, and actually do need to spend more time developing an understanding of the gap.
04. Problem two: scope creep
One problem that emerges in grant applications, especially the applications that are longer, more rushed, and submitted without enough review, is that a researcher writes a grant and as they write they incorporate new aspects or factors as they write the application without incorporating these into the core of the project itself. I think of this as projects where the author basically got on a roll and started adding in all these features and cool things, not realising that it’s taking them off track from their original claims and ideas. You might find yourself in a situation where you could add in a complicated social network graphing phase into phase three, but what’s the value of that if your project isn’t helped by this? It might be cool, but what does it add? If you didn’t start out with this as something to do you’re going to look like you don’t really know what your research plan actually is.
This is an issue if the grant is suddenly adding unexpected or otherwise not centrally necessary elements that haven’t been flagged during the introduction for a couple of reasons: firstly, it radically changes what the implications and findings of the project might be relative to what is being staked in the outset; secondly, the project is including eminently sensible methodological interventions, but because these are mentioned later they appear as an afterthought without adequate justification in the project; thirdly, the expansion of a project in the project description may actually be an afterthought, an indication of an underplanned project.
In terms of the template, the purpose here is to make sure you plan out all the parts and phases of the project, and most likely, scope creep is going to happen in the project design section, where adding a new analytical tool or method as you’re writing may seem sensible, but actually does not add to the project as much as you think, and all of these expose a project to criticism that can undermine a project’s successful bid for funding. By using the template you can pull all your plans into one place, and hopefully avoid adding in unplanned bonus features that undermine the proposal more than they help it.
05. Problem three: inconsistency
Consistency is important for the proposal. Language and terminology become a point of tension, partly because an assessor’s job is to look for holes and gaps in the project, and wandering terminology is low-hanging fruit. Being consistent with the key terms that you use is going to be one way to ensure you are precise and avoid criticism. This is a matter of terminological consistency as much as it is about defining the terms that you’re going to use and sticking to them even if the writing feels awkward (ideally you should rewrite sentences to be less awkward, while still retaining the key terms).
A lesson I’ve learned personally is that if you refer to something as an “concept” don’t later refer to it as a “model” and so on - work out which terms you are going to commit to using, even when the precision might not normally matter to you.
More importantly, pick what your defined terms are going to be and commit to using them. That’s what the key terms section is for on the template.
For key terms:
- have as few as possible, and don’t introduce unnecessary terms, or variations on those terms (i.e. don’t assume that digital labour and digital work are synonymous, as the distinction may matter to some assessors);
-
can be acronyms if this is meaningful;
-
are epistemological in nature - avoid theoretical matters that aren’t about understanding the phenomena you’re studying;
-
are central to your project, ideally providing context to the gap;
-
are used in your research questions/hypothesis/methods as appropriate;
-
can be technical, but, they
should be defined in plain language that can be understood by someone outside your discipline;
- can be interdisciplinary, although be aware that other disciplines may put different emphasis on the theorising/significance of the terms you’re using.
Use the key terms section to keep track of what terms you’re using, how you’ve written them, how they need to be defined in the project, and then use these consistently in the development of the project description in detail.