The approach you take to applying for research funding seems to depend, at least in part, on how you understand the granting process. My own approach to research planning, including applying for grants, is grounded in my own view of the process. And I frequently have to defend or explain this view to researchers, deans, and others.
This week, I would like to talk about the nature of the competition. I cannot take credit for the metaphor but I hope that using and explaining it will allow you to draw your own conclusions about how to approach your next grant application.
Tests
A good example of a test is getting a driving license. You take a test. You pass or fail. You get comments on how you did on different criteria. If you fail, you can work on the weak areas, retake the test, and get a license.
It doesn’t matter how anyone else taking the test performs. You are judged on your own performance against defined criteria. That’s it.
Most research funding competitions are not tests. The one exception might be found in funding for graduate school. I know of at least one university that offers funding (usually in the form of a tuition waiver and teaching assistantship) to all graduate students entering with a GPA above a defined level.
Lotteries
A lottery is the polar opposite of a test. There are no criteria. Your entry goes into a hat (or hat equivalent). Someone reaches in and randomly chooses one or more entries.
Winning a lottery is based on chance. The outcome is random. Mathematicians have done a lot of work on probability and random events. You can use that knowledge to try to improve your chances by, for example, buying more tickets or entering frequently. But the outcome is still random.
In a lottery there is no relationship between your action and the outcome.
To the best of my knowledge, no research funding opportunities are run as lotteries, though it can feel like they are sometimes. Especially when the competition is tough and a lot of excellent people and proposals are not getting funded.
Contests
In a contest, your performance does matter. But it is judged relative to others competing in the same contest. Sporting events are usually contests. You can run faster than you have ever run in your life and still not win a race.
The outcome of a contest is dependent on both your performance and the level of competition. Factors like the number of prizes as a proportion of all contestants and the average ability of contestants make a difference to your likelihood of success. But so does the performance of individual contestants on the day.
Most research funding opportunities are contests. There are a limited number of grants available. Applicants are ranked relative to other applicants. The best applicants will be awarded grants and others will not. I talked about the complexity of judging this particular race last week.
Using feedback
Just because research funding is allocated by contest, doesn’t mean feedback isn’t helpful. Elite athletes routinely review their performance in sporting events as they prepare for the next one. Interestingly they review successful performances as well as unsuccessful ones.
The key is not to treat feedback on an unsuccessful grant application as you would the feedback on a driving test.
Athletes have coaches. Elite athletes often have several for different aspects of their performance. They may have a regular coach but will have to work with a specific coach if they are chosen for the national team. They might have a personal trainer to work on regular fitness. They’ll have specific coaches and mentors for different aspects of their sport.
You are the academic equivalent of an elite athlete. You have personal goals. Your institution has goals. These coincide in many ways and thus your institution will provide support to help you achieve your goals (and theirs). You may also have other goals. You may find that training with friends and holding each other accountable keeps your performance up. You may want your own equivalent of a personal trainer or coach to help you build a strong research record and submit strong applications.
You need to submit your best application, just like an athlete needs to run their best race. But don’t be too cautious about entering. Placing in the middle of a race does not indicate that you should not have entered. It indicates that you have more work to do to win. The field changes every time. Some of the good runners have bad days.
Don’t be scared to compete. And don’t get discouraged if you don’t win.
If you need help
I can be your personal coach. Read my free e-book about writing and publishing. If my approach seems like a good fit for how you work, we can work together to make a plan and set up an accountability system.
Book an initial 20 minute consultation for only $30. 
(all prices in Canadian funds)
