What determines ERC call success? What does the ERC evaluation process entail and how does it differ from our domestic approach? These issues are discussed by our guests today, Prof. Grażyna Jurkowlaniec and Prof. Ewelina Knapska.
Our new podcast episode hosted by Anna Korzekwa-Józefowicz features a discussion on the ERC evaluation of grant proposals and strategies to increase researchers’ chances of success.
Prof. Grażyna Jurkowlaniec, photo M. Kaźmierczak/UW
Prof. Grażyna Jurkowlaniec from the Faculty of Culture and Arts, University of Warsaw, studies art and art historiography from late Medieval to Early Modern period. She is the Chair of the Foundation for Polish Science’s Council and former member of the board of the National Program for the Humanities (Narodowy Program Rozwoju Humanistyki, NPHR”). She is also a former winner of three NCN grants. As part of the SAIGA project (ERC Advanced) she has analysed the relationship between the research on the fauna of Eastern European and the ways in which the region was perceived in the Early Modern period. Prof. Ewelina Knapska is a neuroscientist from the Nenecki Institute of Experimental Biology, PAS, who researchers emotions and how they are socially transmitted. She is the Head of the Laboratory of Emotions Neurobiology and Co-Head of the MAB Brain City. She is also a former recipient of NCN Grants and ERC Starting Grant (2016) for a project on how the amygdala controls emotions.
Expert researchers on the evaluation process
Both scientists are former members of the ERC review panels. In our podcast, they are talking about their experience as grant recipients and experts, and explore what makes a grant proposal successful.
Prof. Jurkowlaniec says that “a proposal must be ambitious, bold and must go beyond the conventional approach.” “My experience shows that a research project in humanities is often thought to be nothing more but an outline of a monograph, whereas the ERC requires a wider and more comprehensive approach. Not just a table of contents of a future monograph,” she adds.
According to Prof. Knapska, many proposals are simply not bold enough in their hypotheses and extent, which is their main problem. “I often read and comment on proposals when requested to do so and have noticed that they are just too conservative. As a panel member I know that they will be rejected at the first stage,” she adds.
She stresses that the key is to properly define a research problem. “A significant research question must be posed and one must not be afraid to take a bold approach. A project should bring new insights in a specialisation as well as entire research field,” she says.
General quality of proposals
The experts were asked about the general quality of evaluated proposals.
dr hab. Ewelina Knapska, prof. IBD PAN, photo One HD dla FNP
Prof. Knapska says that “in some countries, where the ERC is regarded as an additional source of funding, preselection takes place when one decides to apply. But there are also countries where funding for research is very modest and researchers have no choice but to try their luck at the ERC. Italian researches, for example, apply to the ERC because they have no other choice.”
The second stage of evaluation is yet another story. “At this stage, we nearly always deal with excellent proposals, so it is incredibly difficult to choose the best ones. It is so hard to take the final decision because we are choosing from the very top proposals,” Prof. Knapska says.
A proposal is not a school essay
The ERC rewards boldness, originality and determination. The scientists advise that one must not give up after the first unsuccessful submission of a grant proposal but emphasise that applicants must not correct their proposals by addressing the reviewers’ feedback only. “Researchers often improve their proposals like an essay at school and address nothing more but the reviewer’s feedback. This is a mistake,” says Prof. Jurkowlaniec. “You can never be sure that your proposal will be re-evaluated by the same persons, while new reviewers may have completely different feedback. Instead of addressing every single feedback, one should thoroughly consider which modifications are crucial and which result from the reviewer’s current view. Scientists must be certain that their ideas are valuable, otherwise it is probably better to wait a couple of years and draft a new proposal.”
This view is shared by Prof. Knapska who claims that “one must not give up on the first rejection or correct their proposal automatically,” and “the best way is to thoroughly analyse the feedback and decide what needs to be modified. A new approach and fresh interpretation can be the key to successful submission in the future.”
You can listen to the entire discussion in our latest podcast available on Spotify, Apple Podcast and You Tube, where automatic transcription is also available.
We have discussed the NCN evaluation procedure in:
Podcast 2, 2023. How to evaluate proposals
Podcast 3, 2024. How to evaluate proposals, part 2
You can also read an interview with Piotr Sankowski and Artur Obłuski, NCN and ERC grant winners, in which they talk about perseverance in their quest for funding.