Developing as a post-PhD researcher: agency and feedback in construction of grant funding success ( El desarrollo del investigador posdoctoral: agencia y feedback en la preparación de propuestas de financiación exitosas )
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2022
Developing as a post-PhD researcher: agency and feedback in construction of grant funding success ( El desarrollo del investigador posdoctoral: agencia y feedback en la preparación de propuestas de financiación exitosas )
Grant funding is critical to building a sustained research career. Yet in this climate of academic performativity little is known about how individual academics make their contribution to knowledge fundable. This in-depth longitudinal case study explores an approach evolved by an experienced Canadian scientist whose work is recognized for both scholarly and societal impact. We demonstrate how, over ten years, his agentive participation in academic interactions has contributed to continual development of his research and its funding through: his seeking and engaging with feedback; network-wide view of feedback sources; and drawing on feedback to inform his writing and research thinking. The article suggests a developmental view of the process in which, over time, researchers conceive, expand and draw on their feedback networks. Locating funding success within the social dimensions of knowledge and researcher development, the study sheds light on the role of agency and experiential learning in enabling contributions to frontline knowledge. Results suggest a novel, encompassing way for post-PhD researchers to build towards sustained grant funding.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AckerS.WagnerA. (2019). Feminist scholars working around the neoliberal university. Gender and Education, 31(1), 62–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2017.1296117
2.
ÅkerlindG. S. (2008). An academic perspective on research and being a researcher: An integration of the literature. Studies in Higher Education, 33(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701794775
3.
AounC.VatanasakdakulS.AngK. (2018). Feedback for thought: Examining the influence of feedback constituents on learning experience. Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 72–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1156665
4.
BasturkmenH.EastM.BitchenerJ. (2014). Supervisors’ on-script feedback comments on drafts of dissertations: Socialising students into the academic discourse community. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(4), 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.752728
5.
BautistaA.CastellóM. (2017). Fostering the professional development of junior authors and reviewers in scientific journals. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 40(3), 383–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2017.1357250
BazermanC. (2013). Understanding the lifelong journey of writing development. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 36(4), 421–441. https://doi.org/10.1174/021037013808200320
8.
BolT.De VaanM.Van de RijtA. (2018). The Matthew effect in science funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(19), 4887–4890. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719557115
9.
BornmannL. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22803
10.
BoudD.MolloyE. (2013). Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well. Routledge.
11.
CamicC.GrossN.LamontM. (2011). Social science in the making. CUP.
12.
CarterS.KumarV. (2017). ‘Ignoring me is part of learning’: Supervisory feedback on doctoral writing. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(1), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1123104
13.
CaseyA.FletcherT. (2017). Paying the piper: The costs and consequences of academic advancement. Sport, Education and Society, 22(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2016.1168795
14.
CastellóM.Sala-BubaréA.BautistaA. (2017). Being a researcher is not only a matter of publishing: Learning to review scientific articles. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 40(3), 599–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2017.1357251
15.
ChubbJ.WatermeyerR. (2017). Artifice or integrity in the marketization of research impact? Investigating the moral economy of (pathways to) impact statements within research funding proposals in the UK and Australia. Studies in Higher Education, 42(12), 2360–2372. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1144182
16.
CohenL.ManionL.MorrisonK. (2013). Research methods in education. Routledge.
17.
ConnorU. (2000). Variation in rhetorical moves in grant proposals of U.S. humanists and scientists. Text, 20(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.1
18.
CotosE. (2019). Articulating societal benefits in grant proposals: Move analysis of Broader Impacts. English for Specific Purposes, 54, 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.11.002
19.
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
20.
CrouchM.McKenzieH. (2006). The logic of small samples in interview-based qualitative research. Social Science Information, 45(4), 483–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018406069584
21.
DerrickG. (2018). The evaluators’ eye: Impact assessment and academic peer review. Springer Nature.
22.
DingH. (2008). The use of cognitive and social apprenticeship to teach a disciplinary genre: Initiation of graduate students into NIH grant writing. Written Communication, 25(1), 3–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088307308660
EvansL. (2014). What is effective research leadership? A research-informed perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.864617
25.
FengH. (2011). Discourses and tales of grant-seeking activity: Academic writing and professional expertise. Peter Lang.
FlowerdewL. (2016). A genre-inspired and lexico-grammatical approach for helping postgraduate students craft research grant proposals. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.10.001
28.
FranssenT.ScholtenW.HesselsL.De RijckeS. (2018). The drawbacks of project funding for epistemic innovation: Comparing institutional affordances and constraints of different types of research funding. Minerva, 56(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9338-9
29.
GläserJ.LaudelG. (2016). Governing science: How science policy shapes research content. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes De Sociologie, 57(1), 117–168. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975616000047
30.
GläserJ.Serrano-VelardeK. (2018). Changing funding arrangements and the production of scientific knowledge: Introduction to the special issue. Minerva, 56(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-018-9344-6
31.
GouldE. (2003). The university in a corporate culture. Yale University Press.
32.
GravesN.BarnettA. G.ClarkeP. (2011). Funding grant proposals for scientific research: Retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel. British Medical Journal, 343(sep27 1), d4797. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4797
33.
HandleyI. M.BrownE. R.Moss-RacusinC. A.SmithJ. L. (2015). Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(43), 13201–13206. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510649112
34.
HattieJ. (2016). Know thy impact. In SchererM. (Ed.), On Formative assessment: Readings from educational leadership (Vol. 36, pp. 36–45). ASCD.
35.
HylandF. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90017-0
36.
HylandK. (2016). Teaching and researching writing. Taylor & Francis.
37.
InouyeK. S.McAlpineL. (2017). Developing scholarly identity: Variation in agentive responses to supervisor feedback. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 14(2), art. 3. https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol14/iss2/3
38.
Jazvac-MartekM.ChenS.McAlpineL. (2011). Tracking the doctoral student experience over time: Cultivating agency in diverse spaces. In McAlpineL.AmundsenC. (Eds.), Doctoral education: Research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators (pp. 17–36). Springer.
39.
Knorr-CetinaK. D. (2013). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Pergamon Press.
40.
KumarV.StrackeE. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701415433
41.
LamontM. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Harvard University Press.
42.
LamontM. (2012). Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120022
LawrenceH. Y.LussosR. G.ClarkJ. A. (2019). Rhetorics of proposal writing: Lessons for pedagogy in research and real-world practice. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 49(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281617743016
45.
MaxwellJ. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage.
46.
McAlpineL. (2016). Becoming a PI: Shifting from ‘doing’ to ‘managing’ research. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1110789
47.
McAlpineL.AmundsenC. (2016). The challenges of entering ‘mid-career’: Charting a balanced future. Higher Education Review, 48(2), 5–30. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1132777
48.
McAlpineL.AmundsenC. (2018). Identity-trajectories of early career researchers: Unpacking the post-PhD experience. Palgrave Macmillan.
49.
McAlpineL.TurnerG.SaundersS.WilsonN. (2016). Becoming a PI: Agency, persistence, and some luck!International Journal for Researcher Development, 7(2), 106–122. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRD-12-2015-0033
50.
McGinnM. K.Vander-KloetM.AckerS.WagnerA. (2019). Dear SSHRC, what do you want? An epistolary narrative of expertise, identity, and time in grant writing. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 20(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.1.3128
51.
MehlenbacherB. (1994). The Rhetorical nature of academic research funding. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 37(3), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1109/47.317481
52.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldanaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.
53.
MongeonP.BrodeurC.BeaudryC.LarivièreV. (2016). Concentration of research funding leads to decreasing marginal returns. Research Evaluation, 25(4), 396–404. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvw007
54.
MyersG. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. University of Wisconsin Press.
55.
NguyenM. H. (2012). The potential for Vygotskian sociocultural perspective in researching researcher development. Asian Social Science, 8(15), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n15p1
56.
NicolD. J.Macfarlane-DickD. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
57.
ParéA. (2017). Re-thinking the dissertation and doctoral supervision. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 40(3), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2017.1341102
58.
PriceM.HandleyK.MillarJ. (2011). Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.483513
59.
RiessmanC. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage.
60.
Serrano-VelardeK. (2018). The way we ask for money … The emergence and institutionalization of grant writing practices in academia. Minerva, 56(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-018-9346-4
61.
SkakniI. (2018). Désacraliser la carrière universitaire: Concilier compétences scientifiques, génériques et «de carrière» pour repenser les identités professionnelles en recherche. TransFormations, 15-16, 1–22. https://transformations.univ-lille.fr/index.php/TF/article/view/262
62.
TardyC. (2003). A genre system view of the funding of academic research. Written Communication, 20(1), 7–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088303253569
63.
TardyC. (2011). ESP and multi-method approaches to genre analysis. In D. Belcher, A. M. Johns, & B. Paltridge (Eds.), New directions in English for specific purposes research (pp. 145–173). University of Michigan Press.
64.
TsengM.-Y. (2011). The genre of research grant proposals: Towards a cognitive–pragmatic analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(8), 2254–2268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.015
65.
Van ArensbergenP.Van der BesselaarP. (2012). The selection of scientific talent in the allocation of research grants. Higher Education Policy, 25(3), 381–405. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2012.15
66.
Van NostrandA. D. (1997). Fundable knowledge: The marketing of defense technology. Erlbaum.
67.
WhitleyR.GläserJ.LaudelG. (2018). The impact of changing funding and authority relationships on scientific Innovations. Minerva, 56(1), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-018-9343-7
XuL. (2017). Written feedback in intercultural doctoral supervision: A case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(2), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1237483
71.
YinR. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE.
72.
YousoubovaL. (2011). Genre and disciplinarity: The challenge of grant writing for new non-anglophone scientists. In McAlpineL.AmundsenC. (Eds.), Doctoral education: Research based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators (pp. 133–155). Springer.
