The Formula for ERC Grant Success: Simple, Clear, and Powerful
Successful grant proposals transform all of the complexities and caveats that inhabit your mind as an expert into a clear idea for achieving something meaningful.
After weeks of intense work, you've finally completed your ERC grant proposal.
Every complex detail of your groundbreaking research is carefully woven into the text. Confident, you send it to your grants office for review. The response that comes back in an email the next day:
“I don’t understand what you mean here. It’s not clear to me why you would do it this way.”
Your offended demeanor is taken over by a feeling of dread.
Dread that you are about to enter into rounds of confusing discussions about the content of your proposal.
The knowledge curse.
If you have been in this situation, you are experiencing what is called the knowledge curse.
We have a hard time viewing a problem or a plan from the perspective of others.
Those with knowledge are notoriously poor at predicting the learning performance of novices (1) . This is a sort of bias created because knowledgeable people or experts make leaps of logic that a novice cannot follow.
This is related to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
In simple terms, the Dunning-Kruger Effect is that the less you know, the more you think you know. The opposite of this is that when you know a lot about a topic, you under estimate what you know. This comes from an understanding of the complexities and the caveats. This is not a new idea:
“The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.” William Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act V, Scene I
As an expert, you know all the things that could go wrong. You understand the complexities and the uncertainties, so you write in a way that addresses all the ways things could go wrong (2).
You include too many complexities and caveats.
The challenge is to find the right balance between infusing your text with complexities and caveats and being clear enough that those reading your text do not struggle.
Being ambitious helps communicate your ideas more clearly.
One way around this is to be ambitious. Being ambitious is a way to be more clear might sound like a paradox.
However, when you are ambitious, no one is an expert on what you are planning or aiming to do.
It is also a fact that if we are going to engage in ambitious projects we have to be comfortable with uncertainty. When we are uncertain we are less susceptible to the trap of adding too many caveats or extraneous bits of information.
The ERC opportunity
While it is nearly always a good strategy to be ambitious in a grant proposal, some funding mechanisms call for more ambition than others.
The phrase “Ground-breaking nature” appears three times in short instructions for reviewers. The words ambition or ambitious also feature three times in the same instructions.
ERC grants offer substantial funding.
Starting grants 1.5m + 1m *startup costs for moving to a different country, the purchase of major equipment and/or access to large facilities and/or other major experimental and field work costs.
Consolidator 2 m + 1m*
Advanced 2.5m +1m*
Synergy (2-4 PIs) 10m + 4*a
The call topics are completely open, which means there are no constraining call topic texts. They also happen on a regular basis, allowing you to anticipate deadlines well in advance and create a plan for a calm process of proposal development.
These wonderful features of ERC grants mean that there is a lot of competition and you have to write a clear proposal.
Insights from an ERC evaluator
In a recent Science Business article, former European Research Council (ERC) evaluator Susan Healy shared invaluable insights about ERC proposals (3).
When she observes that "scientists aren't known for being the best at getting their message across," it rings true.
However, scientists communicate well with others in their given field.
Then the communication is highly efficient, but what makes it highly efficient is the source of the challenge.
Many struggle with writing grant applications because it involves communicating to nonscientists and scientists.
The Jargon Trap
We've all seen it happen: the temptation to hide behind what Healy calls "state-of-the-art labels and jargon." As she points out about a review panel, "The people in the room are intellectuals and want to be intellectually grabbed. They can see through the flimflam."
I have studied successful EU proposals and noticed a consistent pattern: winning applications have straightforward, simple titles for the work packages.
Too often, we fall into the trap of building up sophisticated-sounding text, mistakenly assuming that readers who don't understand lack expertise.
This approach backfires. We are more likely to confuse than convince.
Creating a Clear Vision
"Simple language, a clear summary and an attention-grabbing first page are key to success," Healy tells us. "Evaluators spend hours sorting through applications and you want to get them excited about the idea."
In my experience, one of the most effective ways to make proposals both understandable and exciting is to present a clear vision of the future.
Using a narrative approach to describe a project's vision as if it is already the future helps evaluators understand what you intend to achieve.
The Psychology of Evaluation
"Ideas submitted to the ERC are by their nature ambitious and difficult to understand," Healy acknowledges. "ERC assessors are not lightweights, but proposals must make breakthrough scientific concepts accessible. If put forward in simple language, the reader feels clever for understanding it – and that's key."
We face a choice in our writing strategy: we can try to intimidate readers with our knowledge and authority, but making them feel clever for understanding our work is far more effective.
When we help evaluators grasp complex concepts easily, we create allies rather than adversaries.
Setting Clear Expectations
"If proposals are weighed down with complex language, evaluators won't come away knowing what you want to do, and ultimately you won't get the credit if you cannot explain," Healy notes.
I've learned that it's crucial to state objectives clearly and early in the proposal. Without this clarity, we risk having evaluators formulate their own expectations about what we should do.
We want reviewers to see if we'll accomplish what we've explicitly promised, not measure us against their assumptions.
The Impact Challenge
"The panel is not after impact," Healy emphasizes from her experience on multiple panels. "Some applicants come in, promising to solve climate change. That won't impress the committee. They can see through it. Just cut out the bias and get to bottom of it."
We've all seen impact sections loaded with empty hyperbole.
Adding more adverbs doesn't make our projects more innovative or impactful.
Instead, I found success in focusing on describing a pathway to impact that is based on a theory of change.
The impact is in the long-term future, the outcomes the immediate term future, and the outputs are what we deliver in the project.
By using such a framework, you can be clear what you set out to accomplish is feasible and show how it will contribute to outcomes and impact without claiming to deliver grandiose ambitions that achieve impact in a short time frame. A pathway to impact is one of the best ways to increase the perceived value of your research.
The Honesty Principle
"Honesty is key," Healy emphasizes. "Researchers must be able to convey their idea without exaggeration or trying to make it out to be more significant than it is."
I've learned that groundbreaking science speaks most powerfully through clear, honest presentation.
When we resist the urge to artificially enhance our proposals, we build trust in the reviewers.
Practical Strategies for Success
Based on my collective experience and Healy's insights, I've identified several practical strategies:
1.Embrace clarity from the start.
Begin with a compelling first page that clearly states the problem being addressed, why it needs to be addressed now, what will happen if it is not addressed, and how you will address it.
Use simple, direct language that respects the evaluator's intelligence.
Avoid hiding weak ideas behind sophisticated language.
2.Structure for understanding
Choose clear, simple titles for work packages.
Create a logical flow that builds the narrative.
Don’t be afraid to be redundant. A proposal is like an onion, with each layer being a different way of looking at your proposal. For ERC grants, the CV section and the budget sections are part of those layers.
3.Build a future-focused narrative.
Present a vision as if it is already achieved.
Include strategies that will help accelerate the achievement of the future vision.
Keep the story grounded in scientific reality.
4.Address Impact Appropriately
Ground the concept of your project in a problem or set of problems that you have reframed.
Put your impact into a Theory of Change framework that evolves from project outputs to intermediate-term outcomes to long-term outcomes.
Include quantitative impact indicators as a means of knowing that your outputs are contributing to long-term impact.
5.Develop your proposal with someone who is not an expert in your field.
Iteratively develop the concept and the text with a partner outside your field who can help you put your project in a strategic context and ensure that what you are writing is clear and inspiring. I have supported a select set of researchers applying for ERC grants in this way. Get in touch when you are ready to pursue any type of grant funding.
Plan to get your proposal text written in a timeframe that allows you to send it to people who can review it and provide feedback.
Have a growth mindset towards feedback.
Conclusion
Proposal writing is a challenging endeavor that stretches our communication skills. We must ralize that expertise can be a handicap for creating clear and inspiring text. Embrace ambition and work collaboratively to improve clarity.
References
Froyd, J., & Layne, J. (2008, October). Faculty development strategies for overcoming the “Curse of knowledge”. In 2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. S4D-13). IEEE.
McIntosh, R. D., Fowler, E. A., Lyu, T., & Della Sala, S. (2019). Wise up: Clarifying the role of metacognition in the Dunning-Kruger effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148 (11), 1882
Goda Naujokaitytė (2024). Advice on winning ERC grants: don't hide behind the flimflam. Science Business. https://sciencebusiness.net/news/r-d-funding/european-research-council/advice-winning-erc-grants-dont-hide-behind-flimflam
