In our weekly Research Culture Uncovered conversations we are asking what is Research Culture and why does it matter? In episode 6 of season 7, Anna Pilz (Academic Developer and Trainer at the University of Edinburgh) once again joins Taryn Bell (Researcher Development Adviser) to discuss research fellowships.

This time, we're taking a slightly different tack and discussing what happens when research applications aren't successful. What can researcher developers do to provide support during such a difficult time for researchers?

The main points include:

• Highlighting how common funding rejections are
• The importance of hearing from researchers who have faced 'unsuccess' previously
• Acknowledging that the stakes may vary for researchers facing rejection, with precariously employed researchers needing additional support
• Anna's work at Edinburgh supporting researchers after an unsuccessful application
• The role of researcher developers in helping to prepare researchers for a rejection, even before they've submitted!

Also mentioned in the episode:

• #ResearcherRealities: Unsuccessful grants and what to do with them
• Leeds' new Fellowship Accelerator Programme
• Our previous episodes on narrative CVs (Episode 1 and Episode 2)

All of our episodes can be accessed via the following playlists:

• Research Impact with Ged Hall (follow Ged on Twitter and LinkedIn)
• Open Research with Nick Sheppard (follow Nick on Twitter and LinkedIn)
• Research Careers with Ruth Winden (follow Ruth on Twitter and LinkedIn)
• Research talent management with Tony Bromley (follow Tony on Twitter and LinkedIn)
• Meet the Research Culturositists with Emma Spary (follow Emma on Twitter and LinkedIn)
• Research co-production
• Research Leadership
• Research Evaluation

Follow us on twitter: @ResDevLeeds (new episodes are announced here), @OpenResLeeds, @ResCultureLeeds 

Connect to us or leave us a review on LinkedIn: @ResearchUncoveredPodcast (new episodes are announced here)

Hi, I'm Harambel, researcher development advisor at the University of Leeds. This is the second of two episodes focusing on research fellowships and funding. In the previous episode, we discussed how we can support researchers with funding applications, and in this episode we're going to take a slightly different tack and think about what happens when a funding proposal is unsuccessful. So again, I'm very lucky to be joined by Dr. Anna Pilz, who is an academic developer and trainer at the University of Edinburgh. Welcome back Anna.

Thanks so much for having me back, Taryn.

So there's no way to sugarcoat it. Unfortunately, success rates for fellowships and funding are very low, and most researchers, if not all researchers, will experience that grant or fellowship rejection at some point in their careers. So given how common this is, why don't we hear about it more?

Such an intriguing question. And I wondered about what would more look like, because I think it was back in 2010 when actually an Edinburgh colleague, Melanie Stefan, published a short piece in Nature on a CV of failures, in which she encouraged colleagues to keep an up to date CV of all the rejected papers, publications, funding applications, et cetera. And the argument really was that sharing such a CV would help others to deal with the experience, and indeed ushered in a whole range of senior academics sharing their CV of failures online. So when I reflect on events that I participated in, on funding and fellowship applications, or in workshops or in writing groups, I do get a sense that there is a willingness and an encouraging openness to share stories of rejection. So, to give you an example, over the past three years I've participated in Alison Garden's excellent ecade events, and many speakers showed their hidden CV of rejections for jobs, funding and fellowship applications. And often when I introduce myself in a funding themed kind of workshop or training session, I also show a slide with a timeline and above all the successful applications and crammed underneath all the unsuccessful ones. But we don't hear about it enough, do we? And I do wonder why that is. And I think it's because of hidden and perceived expectations and behaviors.

It'd be interesting, actually, to see who shares their unsuccessful stories, whether they are insecure or insecure employment, where these stories of unsuccess are shared, and when there is a difference, whether I confide with trusted colleagues or friends over a cup of coffee at a conference or in a department meeting, or whether I publish my shadow CV on the back of a recent appointment or a success. Right? So it's so important to acknowledge that the emotional and professional stakes of unsuccessful funding applications differ, depending very much on personal circumstances. And really from a research culture perspective, how much are we encouraging researchers to share their unsuccessful application stories? What are the hidden expectations and behaviors? I do think there is a sense of perceived expectations that really center around success and in terms of behavior, that then means hiding mistakes, failures, or burying any indicators of unsuccess, because admitting to unsuccess might then mute one's chances for a job or a promotion.

I think this is so important, people feel like it's a marker of shame rather than a marker of a normal academic career. So you're doing some really interesting work at the moment at Edinburgh focused on unsuccessful grants, and I know our audience would be really interested to hear a little bit more about that.

This January I was part of a panel on what to do with unsuccessful grants that was put together by Gill Haddow, Professor of Sociology of Medicine and Technology here at Edinburgh. And Jill has done some really excellent work for early career academics in the school of Social and Political Science, including conducting some research into precarious employment within the school. In order to put forward some recommendations for change and in the planning stage for the event, Jill and I discussed the remit of the panel and the experiences that we would want to be present, because often when such events are put together, there is a tendency to bring in senior academics as speakers who share their wide ranging experiences and insider knowledge, and also to bust some myths that rejections don't just happen in the early stages of research careers, and of course that is very important. However, if you're putting on a session for early career academics who are most likely going to be on fixed term contracts, listening to those in permanent posts discussing how they handle rejections is a very different matter. So for the securely employed researcher, then a rejection might mean reworking a grant at some point in the future, developing a project further, or getting some seed funding to gather pilot data, which generally doesn't include a salary for the PI. For the insecure employed researcher, however, the rejection might have significant career implications, and we have to be very clear here that the stakes of facing up to rejection are very different, and I was the one joining the panel as one of the precariously employed and independent researchers. It was a really insightful panel discussion that really taught me a lot, and my fellow panelists came forward with a range of top tips that I wrote up in a blog post that listeners can certainly follow up with if they so wish. And three things really came out of that event for me.

First, I'm very keen to develop a workshop on reject it, what next? Or some such title. I'm aware that colleagues at the Edinburgh research office used to run workshops on recycling unsuccessful grant applications, but I do think that we, as researcher developers, can really offer a complementary approach that also addresses the emotional element and can offer a wider facilitated reflection on the implications for the researcher's career. And second, what struck me during the panel conversation was the way in which rejections are felt, their emotional impact. That can feel like a punch in the gut. They're painful. The stakes of the rejection turns the dial on the emotional response, and that can be quite a colorful tapestry. And I know that you're very interested in emotions yourself, Taryn, so I'm very happy to dive into what you think about the emotional tapestry.

Yeah, absolutely. I find it interesting because there's that I can't remember who know the kind of cycle of feeling or failure or rejection, where first it's denial. Eventually you get to acceptance. I do think we see that in the process of going through that emotional cycle of, oh, I've been unsuccessful, what do I do next?

Yeah, absolutely. And I think the palette of emotions can range from pain to sadness, loss and grief, as you say, disappointment, frustration, anger, paralysis, hopelessness, but also anxiety and stress. A sense of shame that you've mentioned earlier. But for some, if you're kind of a very close miss on your application, it might also actually give you confidence in your ideas and give motivation to reapply and try again.

I mean, that's interesting because one of the things I often do to people is say they got an interview but weren't successful. I say, well, you got to interview. That's such a good marker that what you're doing really resonated with the funder. And I mean, I'm very much one of those people I love to celebrate every aspect of the application process. They've submitted something, let's celebrate. They've had reviews back, they've sent the response to reviews, let's celebrate that bit. They've got an interview, let's celebrate that bit. And I think we often treat the kind of end point of being successful for that fellowship or grant as the only point of success, when there are plenty of points of success all the way through the process and we don't often celebrate that enough.

Absolutely. I totally agree. And I think part of our role to encourage that and to point people towards celebrating those smaller depths along the way, and that they are achievements in their own right.

Absolutely. But I think, as you say, we also have to bear in mind the stresses of precarity as well and the way that affects these emotions, too.

Yes, absolutely. And that would be my third kind of point or takeaway from that panel session that really we have to take precarity into consideration there, because, as I've said, the stakes involved and the urgency as to when to access funding, it really kind of differs depending on the personal circumstances. I have to say that I was rather a bit shocked to hear realizations such as we have to listen to the researchers, or researchers are humans, that that is a kind of a revelation of some kind. How can we have arrived at that point? I find that hard to get my head around, because research is done by researchers. It's not fallen from the sky. So listening to researchers concerns and challenges is so important. And that means sitting also with uncomfortable topics and with very messy emotions. And it also means feeding up any recommendations that come from the bottom up further through committees, et cetera.

Yeah, I completely agree. And I think there's also, we can learn a lot from the researchers themselves about the kind of support that we're offering, if there are things that we can do better, if there are things that they really liked, and we take this on board. I've had in the past difficult conversations with former fellows where they say, I'm going to be honest with you, when I applied for this fellowship last year, I don't think there was enough support for me. I would have liked more support in this area, and it allows us to improve. So, like you say, we really do have to listen to our researchers. So kind of moving on to that to get to the very heart of the matter, how do we actually support researchers when a funding application is unsuccessful?

Such a great question. I think there are two parts here. One is really the need to acknowledge the emotions connected to being unsuccessful, so not shying away from allowing those emotions to surface. And the other is to offer a range of very kind of practical support. So both parts can take a variety of forms, I feel. To acknowledge the emotions that come with unsuccess can mean, for instance, to create sessions that allow for the emotions to come to the surface, to offer a space for reflection, and also to enable participants to identify them in a safe environment and to realize that one is not alone. An informal conversation, as the one I participated in on the panel, could be one such an example or option. But we can also create formats and platforms to give voice to and enable the sharing of the emotional experience and how one moves through that.

Naming the emotions can also form parts of a workshop. It can be addressed in coaching sessions or through mentoring. At Edinburgh, we've recently offered coaching sessions to unsuccessful applications to the strategic leadership and research program. Could there be opportunities to offer this to researchers and academics who were unsuccessful in funding applications? Now I realize it might be difficult to deliver this at scale, given how common rejections are, but facilitated action learning sets or peer mentoring sessions could be really helpful. So lifting the veil on the diverse emotions connected to being unsuccessful can be really quite powerful, I feel. And allowing reaction then to happen is important as a crucial first step to move towards proaction. I don't know. What do you think, Taryn? I know you're kind of thinking a lot about emotions and you've recently launched the Fellowship Accelerator programme.

Do you build that in?

I mean, that's exactly the thing. And I think the way you put it as lifting the veil is such a good way of thinking about it. I think our very first step is to really increase our awareness and our researchers awareness of how common unsuccessful grants are. So it doesn't feel like, oh, it means I'm not good enough. And I think as well, I mean, the thing for me that we've really built into fellowship accelerator is peer support. People will be in these small buddy groups all the way through the program because I find, as much as I have my experience in my area, it's one thing for me to say as a researcher developer on a permanent contract that it's going to be okay. But I think what researchers often want to hear from is others in a similar position. So they've got their peer groups and we're also bringing throughout the program, we're bringing in current fellows to talk about what they did and how they got through it so that they are actually hearing from people who've been through the process.

And that's one of the things I'm thinking as we come towards the start of the program is trying as much as possible to build in that more emotional understanding, not just thinking about the practical support, but thinking how I can support researchers through this process and all the emotions that come with it as well, even if that emotion is simply, I've turned up today and I'm feeling really fed up and I really don't fancy talking about fellowships today. Okay, well, how do we manage that? But that said, there's also the practical support, and I know you have a lot of thoughts about the kind of practical things that we can do as well.

I do, yeah. The practical support then steps in to turn the initial reaction into an action. And I think again, there is a variety of opportunities for us here as researcher developers, including your fellowship accelerator program. So depending on the size and the expertise of researcher development teams, it can be a kind of three pronged support that tackles the unsuccessful application and its implications. Research related questions can include does the project idea need to be developed further? Are there elements of the project that make it overly ambitious or not ambitious enough? Does it require some pilot data or some seed funding? In terms of funding, then questions circle around reapplication, comparable schemes, preparatory or preliminary research or building collaborations, and one's career stage and employment contract then determines which funding scheme one is eligible for. And support can really address all of these kind of three elements really. So it's very important. And you've talked about this as well just now by kind of bringing in experience from others.

And I feel there is great opportunities to bring that lift experience into the support system as you do and to feature those kind of case studies from those who moved from unsuccessful to successful funding applications. And I've been in that place myself with the Mary Curie Fellowship scheme. And in my workshop on how to write your first fellowship application, I share examples from my first application that was unsuccessful, show them the feedback that I received and what changes I made in the second submission that was then eventually successful. And the feedback to that session really highlights that they value that lift experience and those kind of concrete examples of so what did reapplication exactly look like? What changes were made and examples can really be integrated into existing workshops, but can also take the form of panel sessions with a q A, for instance. And another practical support that's so vital is to really normalize rejections, enable researchers to revisit their applications and then to kind of identify their next kind of action points. So a workshop on rejected what next might include, for instance, sections on normalizing and depersonalizing rejections, sharing rejection stories, identifying what's at stake with the rejection, considering tactical next steps and what's at stake in the rejection would involve considering also the feedback, if any, was given, or giving suggestions for how one can solicit feedback and reviewing the project's strengths and areas for development, which then can mean looking for smaller foots of funding, for instance, in order to bulk out some elements. And that then really moves into the reworking and resubmitting funding applications. So if an identified next step is to rework the application, then support can be provided by, or indeed in collaboration with, research offices.

They are very well placed to know which scheme or call would be appropriate and can offer very targeted advice on recycling the funding application and colleagues at the Edinburgh research office are in the process of bringing back those very kind of workshops that target unsuccessful applicants, and other options also have to be sketched out. So if the unsuccessful grant application throws into question the whole career trajectory for various reasons, then career consultations or coaching can be helpful to identify what options are available to the researcher. There's also the opportunity here to have conversations about where you want to work, because reapplying might mean looking for a different host institution, because some schools or institutes don't support UKRI, future leaders fellowship applicants, for instance, or European Research Council starting grants applicants, unless they're on permanent contracts. So a question to explore might be what's the map of your network and potential collaborators? And if not here, can you be supported elsewhere? And that's certainly a conversation I've had in one on one sessions I run on how to build your research profile. But key to any of such support has to be about normalizing rejections. They happen to pretty much everyone, and we need to reframe, unsuccess or failure.

I wonder as well whether we have work to do to prepare researchers in advance, not preparing them for failure, so to speak, but being honest with them about how it's going to be, how this is going to work. As you've said to me in the past, we often talk about these schemes in terms of their success rates. But if we flip around and say there's an 80% chance you're not going to be successful, that's in a completely different way of thinking about it. And I do wonder whether I often do see people staking their entire career on one grant, which is a risky tactic. And I wonder whether we need to be having those conversations throughout the process as well, not just when they're unsuccessful.

Absolutely. And I think that goes to the heart of how are we moving towards reframing failure and normalizing rejections? And it is by being upfront about the unsuccessful rates, because, as you say, if I'm aware that I have an 85% chance of being unsuccessful, how I approach the task is very different to when I hear I have a 15% chance of being successful. It kind of shifts the gear to a certain extent. And I think we're also talking about the pre pre award support that we're giving here and to what extent we're encouraging participants of workshops or include in our resources and prompt researchers to really think about. You may have your ideal plan A, but you really need to also sketch out plan B and C on the basis of this is the reality of what the unsuccessful rate is. So building that in is a way of normalizing it. I think it is a way of setting them up for failure, because that is embedded in it and that as a positive. It's part of the process, it's part of the learning that can be taken.

And I think there is also that consideration of things go wrong all the time. If you had the answers all at the beginning, then what's the point? So it's about kind of embracing it as a process.

And what I often do hear from successful fellows is that it took a lot of unsuccesses before they got to that success. But what made the difference was that they learned from the times that they weren't successful. They took feedback on board, they sought out additional feedback. They worked and they worked and they changed things, and they developed a more mature proposal, and it ended up being successful in the end. But it takes a lot of work. And the process of being successful can include that unsuccess as well.

Yeah, absolutely. And what you're just describing, there is also like a collective approach, right, where a community kind of comes together, people share their experiences, they offer feedback. So it's also a way of asking for feedback and being open about when unsuccess happened to say, look, this came back, I heard, I was unsuccessful. Would you mind taking a look at the feedback? I would like to kind of talk through a little bit. Again, it's about breaking down those barriers and emotions of shame that come with unsuccess and make it a more kind of collective experience.

Weirdly, this is the first thought that came to mind, is that we often talk about it takes a village to raise a child, but I think it takes, it takes a village to get a fellowship application done as well. So, moving on, to think about this in terms of actual palpable steps that we can take for you. What are the steps that we can take to make this a reality, to start to normalize rejections and to start to support our researchers when they're unsuccessful?

As a first step, I feel that we need more research into research culture to understand really what the behaviors, values, expectations, attitudes are and to specifically understand the hidden elements of that. We need to understand who shapes them, what fuels them, who defines success, what does success look like? How does it differ for different research communities? So we need to better understand, and research is really the way to go about it. And just pointing out one example here by colleagues at Edinburgh, Cecile Menard and Sarah Shinton's work on the career paths of long term researchers is one example that looks at a specific community and how they face particular challenges and barriers to funding. We also must take a very realistic approach, as we've both said, that really gives participants and researchers a sense of the unsuccessful rate. So reframing that really, and to build in that idea of what's plan B, what's plan C? And I think that's very important to bring the truth to light, as it were. And then that directly relates to another step we can take. And that's about the kind of pre, pre award support that we've talked about. I think that's important too.

Any funding related training should be built or should be building in support and tips to develop a strategy that has unsuccess embedded in it. And that means considering from the outset eligibility for reapplication, alternative scheme, breaking a project into different work packages. And that really buffers any rejection that might come in, because you know what your plan B is. And that is certainly something that I want to think more about, how I can integrate that into my workshops and resources. Another step I can think of relates to a wider community or collective approach. We need more people coming forward about their unsuccessful applications, and that means proactively inviting those stories to be shared. And I've come across great initiatives at other institutions in the Netherlands, for instance, and in Austria that celebrate failure. So at the University of Graz, for instance, I think they call it a festival of fiascos.

And I really kind of love that idea of celebrating that, celebrating the process of things going wrong. Because whether it comes in the form of failed funding, applications, papers, book proposals, experiments, collaborations that went totally off the charts, initiatives or methodological approaches that fail, they all offer learnings of some kind. And it's what allows researchers to grow and to do things differently in the future. So things going wrong and not coming through are at the heart of various research related processes. And indeed, failure, I think, is a process. And if we had all the right answers from the get go, we wouldn't be starting to do all these things. So I think it's about inviting those stories to be shared. And part of that, I guess, then, is also about reframing success.

Success is not just getting a grant, as you say. Success is submitting a grant getting to interview or being on the reserve list, it means you have a vision for your research, you understand the funding landscape. You have an ambition. So one of the tips from my fellow panelists from the January event talked about putting unsuccessful funding applications on your CV. And I have to admit, that's not something that I had thought about a lot, but it is, right? It's about the realities of that and the realities of having a vision and the methods you take in order to make your research ideas come to life. So I think it's about new ways of reading those realities. So we need to diversify the voices we listen to, the stories we invite, the experiences we share, and the case studies that we offer and integrate into our support. And I think that's a lot that we can do in the short term, for sure.

Absolutely. That gives me a lot to work on, and I absolutely would love to attend a festival of fiascos. So just one final short question. Say a researcher is listening to this, and they've just received a rejection on an application that they've really had their heart set on. What would be the advice that you would give to them?

Take a deep breath, have a good cry, go to one of those boxing lessons, or go on a walk or a very speedy run. Let the emotions happen. Don't kind of hide them. Sit with them for a while, put the feedback aside, sulk for a few days, but then come back and say, okay, let's take stock. And then it's about sitting down, reading, having your support system in place in order to work through, make sense of that feedback, if there is feedback and of the situation, and then come up with a plan, and then reach out to the support network that is there, whether that is individuals or whether that is training. Yeah, and I would say, have another go.

And I would also add to that, I think reach out to your support networks outside of academia, too, because I think it's really important. I mean, from my own experience as a researcher, it's incredibly useful to have that support from family members who know that it's disappointing, but also don't really care because they're not academics, they're not in your area, it's not that important to them. Because for me, that always helped me kind of take stock and go, okay, I was unsuccessful, but it's not the end of the world. There's other things out there.

Absolutely.

So, once again, this has been an incredibly interesting conversation, and I hope that those of you listening have found it as fascinating as I have. If you're interested in all things funding. Remember that there are plenty more episodes of the podcast to catch up on. I would particularly recommend the double episode on narrative CVs with Emma and Elizabeth Adams, because if you're applying for funding or supporting someone who does, no doubt you've come across these. Any resources that we've talked about during this podcast will be linked to in the show notes, as always. And Anna, I'm sure people can contact you on LinkedIn.

Yes, that sounds good.

In the meantime, it's goodbye from me and goodbye from Anna. Thanks so much for coming to speak again with us, Anna.

You're very welcome. It was a pleasure. Thanks, Taryn.