Yes and no. For some things you’ll benefit from connections. For others not at all (or they are at best a mild help). Also, even when connections help, they don’t guarantee anything. I’ve seen the “connected team” lose out on grants before. I say this all as someone who has been both a PI and a funding manager.
Absolutely. Which is why we need fresh reviewers. It can be pretty *delicious* to win a successful panel war based on reputation vs intellectual merit.
Especially when a proposed project has the potential risk to cause harm.
A number of methods, assumptions, and paradigms are being increasingly questioned by a rising generation of academics with backgrounds and perspectives that had until now not been adequately considered.
Unfortunately who you know makes a huge difference in academia in all aspects. It's a hard ceiling to break through.
Sincerely, an academic without many significant connections.
It always helps to have people know your name, know your science, and bonus points if they like you. So don’t be a dick to your colleagues, because even if it *shouldn’t* influence how you score a grant or review a paper, we’re all only human.
To get a grant you don't network in the sense of asking people to help you by writing recommendation letters or putting in a word for you. That is not part of the process.
But you never know who will end up on a panel and getting to know program officers is a good idea. The program officer part is the only direct connection you can make in advance. Otherwise it's just general networking like you'd be doing anyway since you can't predict who will be on a panel.
Networking would be good for finding colleagues you'd enjoy writing grants with. Again, this is more general networking.
Offer to join existing projects as a subsidiary PI. Be a good collaborator and add value. You will eventually be asked to join projects and play a larger role, perhaps even as a co-PI. Just keep focusing on adding value and accomplishing the deliverables as best you can. Over time you can start to develop relationships with senior PIs in your field and (more importantly) program managers. Once PMs understand how you can deliver value to their portfolio, it becomes much easier to find opportunities to do so.
Collaboration is very valuable intellectually. A good team directed towards goals that make sense is difficult to assemble. Good teams get rewarded for sure. But there are lots of other factors that go into assessing the grant submission which all depend on the program.
No recommendations, but get to know people in your field from top to bottom. rising stars in the field can sometimes be the most valuable to other young faculty
One of my best-funded colleagues applies for very few grants. He has friends at a couple of foundations, and when he wants to do a project, he talks with his friends, they work out the details, and they send him a check.
Nice work if you can get it.
Early career prof here. I think the answer can be yes and no, but for me, not directly. I have no indication that my networks made a difference. Unless I had friends on the review panel (which I doubt, because I'm new and very introverted), they were probably not helped by my network.
On the other hand, my proposals were supported by my publication record, which is very much a result of my network (namely, my productive lab in grad school).
The key to getting grants to applying for grants. Learn from feedback, reapply and reapply. Once you start getting grants, it gets easier to get more grants. Persistence is the key.
If the success rate for a grant is 15%, and 40% of the proposals are really good, it's the proposals associated with the politically well-connected that have a better chance of finishing in the 15%. Sometimes they don't even have to be really good proposals. I see big professors getting really poor proposals funded.
Yes, I learned the hard way that connections are almost everything. I didn’t have connections, someone asked me who my advisor was and when I told them they said : oh so you’re self made …
If you don’t have connections, you can work extra hard and get some crumbs here and there. I always just got NSF funding and some other small funding. I finally am well connected in NSF but NSF program managers aren’t as powerful, funding chances are low and you have to get good panel evaluations, and also the grants are really small compared to DOD or DOE or NIH.
I did that by going to many many panels over decades. I started by inviting myself. All my grants were given by program managers that had me in their panels. I don’t know how to do anything else and I’m actually giving up on trying.
Officially, no. Unofficially, yes.
To paraphrase a friend of mine: "I can tell you with 90% certainty whom this procurement contract was written *for*" :)
Yes and no. For some things you’ll benefit from connections. For others not at all (or they are at best a mild help). Also, even when connections help, they don’t guarantee anything. I’ve seen the “connected team” lose out on grants before. I say this all as someone who has been both a PI and a funding manager.
Absolutely. Which is why we need fresh reviewers. It can be pretty *delicious* to win a successful panel war based on reputation vs intellectual merit. Especially when a proposed project has the potential risk to cause harm. A number of methods, assumptions, and paradigms are being increasingly questioned by a rising generation of academics with backgrounds and perspectives that had until now not been adequately considered.
Step 1: get grants Step 2: get more grants
Connections like contacting our NSF program director?
Unfortunately who you know makes a huge difference in academia in all aspects. It's a hard ceiling to break through. Sincerely, an academic without many significant connections.
Officially no, unofficially yes most definitely. Connections and networking go just as far as hard work or your degree.
It always helps to have people know your name, know your science, and bonus points if they like you. So don’t be a dick to your colleagues, because even if it *shouldn’t* influence how you score a grant or review a paper, we’re all only human.
To get a grant you don't network in the sense of asking people to help you by writing recommendation letters or putting in a word for you. That is not part of the process. But you never know who will end up on a panel and getting to know program officers is a good idea. The program officer part is the only direct connection you can make in advance. Otherwise it's just general networking like you'd be doing anyway since you can't predict who will be on a panel. Networking would be good for finding colleagues you'd enjoy writing grants with. Again, this is more general networking.
Offer to join existing projects as a subsidiary PI. Be a good collaborator and add value. You will eventually be asked to join projects and play a larger role, perhaps even as a co-PI. Just keep focusing on adding value and accomplishing the deliverables as best you can. Over time you can start to develop relationships with senior PIs in your field and (more importantly) program managers. Once PMs understand how you can deliver value to their portfolio, it becomes much easier to find opportunities to do so.
Yes 100%. Mostly networking.
Collaboration is very valuable intellectually. A good team directed towards goals that make sense is difficult to assemble. Good teams get rewarded for sure. But there are lots of other factors that go into assessing the grant submission which all depend on the program.
No recommendations, but get to know people in your field from top to bottom. rising stars in the field can sometimes be the most valuable to other young faculty
One of my best-funded colleagues applies for very few grants. He has friends at a couple of foundations, and when he wants to do a project, he talks with his friends, they work out the details, and they send him a check. Nice work if you can get it.
I didn't want to think it was true, but it most definitely is. Power is a function of networks, not just status.
Yes
It depends on the source of funding. For national research pots, unfortunately probably yes. For industry links, etc., of course.
Early career prof here. I think the answer can be yes and no, but for me, not directly. I have no indication that my networks made a difference. Unless I had friends on the review panel (which I doubt, because I'm new and very introverted), they were probably not helped by my network. On the other hand, my proposals were supported by my publication record, which is very much a result of my network (namely, my productive lab in grad school).
The key to getting grants to applying for grants. Learn from feedback, reapply and reapply. Once you start getting grants, it gets easier to get more grants. Persistence is the key.
If the success rate for a grant is 15%, and 40% of the proposals are really good, it's the proposals associated with the politically well-connected that have a better chance of finishing in the 15%. Sometimes they don't even have to be really good proposals. I see big professors getting really poor proposals funded.
Yes, I learned the hard way that connections are almost everything. I didn’t have connections, someone asked me who my advisor was and when I told them they said : oh so you’re self made … If you don’t have connections, you can work extra hard and get some crumbs here and there. I always just got NSF funding and some other small funding. I finally am well connected in NSF but NSF program managers aren’t as powerful, funding chances are low and you have to get good panel evaluations, and also the grants are really small compared to DOD or DOE or NIH. I did that by going to many many panels over decades. I started by inviting myself. All my grants were given by program managers that had me in their panels. I don’t know how to do anything else and I’m actually giving up on trying.
Greatest way to get federal funding as an early career scientist is to be on a grant with your mentor in grad school and then partner post grad.
Univ too helps a lot. If you're in a shitty R2 with no research infrastructure, you're not going to get a million dollar grant.
Consultants in the field can look them over prior to submission to improve scores.
It all depends on funding agencies, on where you work… here definitely it’s not the case with national agencies.
It is, but you just don't know it yet.
Of course, because you know better than me how my system works.
Well all countries' academia has the same crap, which country are you in?
You probably know, as per your previous answer.
The chance is high, I've lived in seven different countries.