Writing Interdisciplinary Grants: Building a Team

By Dr Madeleine Beveridge, Research Development Manager, College of Social Sciences and Strategic Research Initiatives and Dr Rachel Chin, Researcher Specialist for Writing and Communication

Grant calls that focus on interdisciplinary research are not just increasingly common, they are being hailed as key to addressing and solving substantial global challenges, from climate change to healthcare. In our second ‘Writing Interdisciplinary Grants’ roundtable two academics shared their experiences writing, capturing and delivering large interdisciplinary grants, with a focus on building a successful project team. Our speakers, Prof Peter MacPherson, Professor of Global Public Health and Head of Public Health Department in the School of Health and Wellbeing, and Dr Michelle Bloor, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Science and Risk, School of Social & Environmental Sustainability, highlighted the importance of relationships in building a research team. They pointed to the time taken to foster trust between collaborators, and how these efforts reap rewards in both the quality of the grant application and the team’s capability to deliver the work.

This blog summarises the conversations and takeaways from this second of three roundtables on interdisciplinary grant writing.

Long-term relationships may be important, but how do you start finding collaborators outside your field? 

When beginning to build a team, principal investigators (PIs) benefit from looking at who holds expertise in key areas, within their own disciplines and adjacent fields, as well as thinking about methodological expertise that could be applied in a new disciplinary context. They might explore membership databases of relevant associations or groups, speak to friends and networks, and identify possible team members through conferences or seminars. PIs can also use their own positions, (e.g. journal editor, conference organiser), to gain a clearer understanding of research in different fields, including how these areas might enhance an interdisciplinary project.

Awareness of the leading experts in a particular area (e.g. based on funding successes and publication impact) can be a good way to identify possible collaborators. However, the most cutting-edge and exciting research ideas are not the exclusive preserve of senior academics. Strong teams also champion the work of those who are earlier in their career. This diversity showcases the potential to undertake groundbreaking research while also developing careers at all stages.

With limited time and resources, how do you decide who not to include in a grant? 

Many projects begin with a smaller, core group who may have worked together before, including seed funding or unsuccessful applications. At this early stage, it is important to have some clarity around the intended vision, using it to identify gaps where additional research expertise can usefully be added. Team building and ideation are iterative processes; new voices might suggest new data or methods or research questions. When a deadline is looming this tension, often a sign that the project is genuinely interdisciplinary, can feel frustrating. Avoiding or limiting bringing in new team-members very late into the application stage, when time is pressing, support you to manage this tension. 

As a proposal progresses, some people may naturally become less involved due to other pressures on their time or because their expertise has become less relevant as the proposal has evolved. As a PI, there may be times when you need to suggest reducing someone’s time on a grant and it is important to be honest and respectful when having these conversations.  

How can humanities perspectives be properly integrated into larger interdisciplinary projects?

One of the realities of our sector is that there is less funding available for research in the Arts & Humanities and Social Sciences (SHAPE). While interdisciplinary grants present opportunities for SHAPE researchers, a persistent challenge remains in how contributions from these fields often feature tokenistically in bids. For instance, a single Humanities or Social Science academic may be involved in only one work package or be brought in to deliver a “service” such as evaluation or public engagement and not involved in setting the intellectual agenda. Our experts noted the importance of avoiding this kind of superficial involvement, and of including SHAPE colleagues in the development of research questions. Being explicit about how a proposal integrates (rather than “bolts-on”) different disciplinary approaches, including their conceptual contribution, will also increase chances of success in interdisciplinary schemes.

Applying for grants takes time and effort and many interdisciplinary calls are short notice. How do you decide what opportunities to prioritise? 

There’s no easy answer to this question. Colleagues in some disciplines may have fewer choices of funding, so when these pots do come around, they don’t rule them out right away. Regardless, many successful bids are rooted in pre-existing partnerships, which enable teams to respond relatively quickly to calls. Think about whether you have or can foster relationships like this, which would allow you to respond to short-notice calls. 

Perhaps your most valuable resource in this situation is your research office. Sometimes calls are written with government priorities or even specific consortia in mind, and research support professionals will be honest when they think this is the case. They can also advise which calls are likely to come around again. Establishing this dialogue early can ensure you’re not wasting time rushing to apply for a call that may not be the best fit or which you could take time preparing for the next round.

You have your team – how do you start writing the grant? 

It takes time to write an interdisciplinary grant. Peter noted that in his context, where funding calls typically have a long notice period, he could spend a year planning a grant, including in-person meetings to brainstorm and plan individual project roles. Not everyone will have such a long lead-in, but team meetings can play a critical role in both the development and writing process. Our experts had a few suggestions on how to make the most of this time: 

• Clarify the meeting purpose and intended outputs at the outset. (i.e. initial brainstorming; producing a concept note; drafting a full proposal).
• Use an agenda to stay on track with meeting timings.
• Establish ground rules so that everyone gets a chance to speak.
• For newer teams, lightening presentations can build understanding around different research methods, concepts and languages, and how they fit within the project. 

Some teams may wish to produce a report based on the meeting, but our experts suggested trying to capture outcomes in a more creative way, such as writable tablecloths or post-it notes. Think about whether a report would be genuinely useful in progressing the grant. For instance, if the meeting aim is to write a concept note, perhaps the most relevant written output might be… the concept note? 

Drafting an application can take many different forms, from a skeleton draft that colleagues fill in, to a shared document with everyone’s ideas that is fine-tuned later. The most important consideration is to adapt the writing process to the team you have. A grant writing session can be used to agree the structure and process collectively. Some things to consider: 

• A lot of ‘writing’ is in the ideation and thinking behind a grant. Some team members may contribute extensively to this process while not putting words on the page.
• All members of a work package (WP) will typically contribute to that work package, with the WP lead responsible for editing and coherence. WP meetings ensure everyone stays on the same page.
• If one person is responsible for most of the writing, other project members must feel empowered to correct or clarify areas of their own expertise. Even in this instance, a grant must feel realistic and well-integrated. 

Closing reflections 

The most powerful interdisciplinary grants seamlessly blend expertise from a range of voices. Getting this right means taking the time to build teams that are supportive and open about processes and roles; having a clear focus and knowing when to say no to opportunities that aren’t a good fit; and utilising the expertise of research offices to navigate the grant landscape.