As a PhD student, you will write a lot of papers, and at a certain point, you will also start writing grants. It took me a moment to realise that these are not the same skill. While they draw on the same science and sometimes the same project, they are different genres with different rules. Treating a grant proposal like a mini-paper is one of the most common and avoidable ways in which people damage their own applications. Here’s what I’ve learnt so far, mostly through trial and error.

Step one: know the landscape before you write a word

Before you open your text editor, you need to research the funding opportunity you’re interested in. Find out when the deadline is, which documents are required, what makes you eligible or ineligible, and what are the mandatory requirements versus those desirable. It may sound obvious, but it’s surprisingly easy to miss a deadline or, even worse, to base your entire career plan on a fellowship that you don’t qualify for or don’t have the right documents for.

Make sure you read the call text properly. There is a large difference between different funding entities, particularly in terms of their funding criteria. Some have narrow, clearly defined objectives, while others have specific request, such as the nominee of multiple mentors or are only obliged to fund things “of general interest”. Be aware of mobility requirements too (your first postdoc may need to be somewhere you don’t intend to stay! Think two steps ahead), as well as PhD-age limits. If there is a maximum age limit, make sure you apply while you still can. If there is a minimum age or number of years’ experience and the call is annual, use the waiting time to work on the weakest part of your profile, so that you become a stronger candidate by the time you are eligible. Bear in mind that bureaucracy takes time, too. If you need documents from your current or future institution, request them well in advance, as some of these can easily take a month or more to get to you.

Academic writing and grant writing pull in opposite directions

We spend years training ourselves to write papers in the past tense, adopting a neutral tone and using field-specific jargon to explain what we did. Grant applications require almost the opposite approach: they should be written in the future tense, be persuasive and personal enough to convey real enthusiasm, and be written for a broader audience than usual. Evaluators aren’t only assessing your previous work; they’re being asked to invest in your future. If your proposal reads like a methods section, you’ve lost sight of your objective before you’ve even made your case.

It helps to remember who you are actually writing for. A proposal has several stakeholders: the funder, who wants their R&D objectives met; the evaluators, who are the gatekeepers you need to convince; your future supervisor or department; your collaborators; and, eventually, society itself. Each of them is reading your text looking for something slightly different, and a good proposal addresses all these groups without losing sight of its main objective.

Remember that evaluators are often bus. They look for any excuse to stop reading, particularly if the first page of your work does not grab their attention. They will keep reading if your project is significant and original, and if your research plan is internally consistent and your deliverables are smart. They will also keep reading if your writing doesn’t waste their time. That’s it. Everything in your proposal should work towards achieving these things.

Write a structure that actually holds together

A good proposal has a solid structure to hold everything together. Begin with the overall problem and explain why it is important. Then break it down into sub-problems and, for each one, include the following: a state-of-the-art overview, an explanation of the gap, a clear objective to close the gap, a work package to deliver the objective, concrete deliverables and a contingency plan in case things go wrong. Everything funnels back up into impact. If a sentence in your proposal cannot be traced back to one of these categories, ask yourself why it is there.

When writing the text, ensure that the order of your sections matches that of the items in the guide for applicants, and use the same wording as in the call for your headings. Remember that evaluators are looking for specific information; make it easy for them to find what they need in your text.

Last but not least, don’t forget to add a visual timeline. A Gantt chart showing work packages, deliverables and milestones over time is much more convincing to evaluators than a paragraph; it’s often the fastest way for a busy evaluator to check that your plan is feasible and that you are aware of the workload each package requires.

The biggest difference is made at the sentence level.

This is where most people miss out on the most value, because it’s mechanical and can be fixed. A few habits:

• Write active sentences and use “I”, not “we”. Funders are investing in you, not your collaborators: stating that ‘this will be done in collaboration with X’ can undermine your case.
• Use verbs, not nominalisations. ‘I will decide’ is better than ‘I will make a decision’.
• Avoid words such as ‘understand’, ‘explore’ and ‘investigate’ in your objectives. Evaluators are often explicitly not in the business of funding intellectual exploration as they want defined outcomes.
• Topic sentences first. The main point of a paragraph should be included in the first one or two sentences, rather than being buried at the end.
• Get feedback, including on your English, before you submit.

Grammatically, the bad version of each example I have shown you above is fine. This is the kind of thing I’d have written just based on my paper writing experience. However, they are vague, passive and evasive: ‘Will be investigated’, ‘it is anticipated that’, ‘a deeper understanding’. The good version specifies a number, a method and an ‘I’, and explains why the objective matters before explaining how it will be achieved.

The final thing is to remember to link “because” to the stated gaps: writing “I will do X because [gap] currently blocks [outcome]” is more effective than “I will do X. I will also do Y,” as it transforms your proposal from a wish list into a plan.

The short version

A grant proposal is not a paper about work you have already done; it is a sales pitch for work you want to do, aimed at people who are looking for reasons not to read it. Familiarise yourself with the landscape, read the call properly and structure your proposal around the following: problem, objective, work package, deliverable and impact. Write in the active voice and be specific about what you will deliver and why it matters. The science doesn’t change, but the way you say the story has.