Read on Twitter
Thinking recently about how a lot of academia (like life in general, I guess) is a theory of mind exercise - trying to figure out what someone else is thinking. Three specific thoughts today about how this works with grants:
1a. Grant reviews are different from paper reviews. Paper revisions often go back to same reviewers & it& #39;s important to address each point one by one. Grant revisions often go back to different people.
1b. One thing I& #39;m trying to learn for grants is to read reviews for the overall message. Less important to address each minor point (next set of reviewers may disagree). More important to figure out big-picture stuff reviewers are trying to communicate.
1c. They might nitpick methods as a way to say "this study doesn& #39;t make sense to me." Addressing each item isn& #39;t going to help with that; adding more clarity will.
1d. Or, they might suggest many refs to add as a way to say "author isn& #39;t having the same conversation as the rest of this literature." Just adding the refs isn& #39;t going to help with that; sounding more like an in-group member will.
1e. It& #39;s like being mad at a friend for a big reason but snapping at them for little things. People don& #39;t always know what& #39;s going on for them & even if they do, don& #39;t always have the words to express it. Good friends can sometimes figure out what& #39;s going on underneath the words.
2a. More on sounding like an in-group member: New papers/grants are joining a conversation that& #39;s already happening. Reviewers are usually people who are already involved in that conversation.
2b. Not connecting yourself to a conversation is like shouting in the middle of the street to no one. Connecting yourself to the wrong conversation is like finding a group of people speaking German & trying to talk with them in Japanese.
2c. Reviewers don& #39;t always know how to say "sound more like an in-group member that& #39;s having the same conversation as me," but I think that& #39;s what some criticisms boil down to. There are a few versions of this. . .
2d. One is standing near a group talking about baseball and trying to get passers-by to talk about the Phillies with you while ignoring the baseball group. I.e., not citing or engaging in conversation with scholars that reviewers see as natural conversation partners for you.
2e. Another is interrupting the baseball group to enthusiastically talk about the Eagles. Kind of related, but not what they were talking about. Sounds like you haven& #39;t been listening & aren& #39;t contributing to their conversation.
2f. To do that, a transition can be helpful: "Yeah, it was so surprising that Phillies traded X player! I was also surprised when Eagles traded Y player..." *I know 0 things about sports, this could be a terrible analogy, I wouldn& #39;t be a good conversation partner in this example.
2g. The point is to figure out what conversation is happening & make some kind of bridge between that & the conversation you want to have. Reviewers might be saying "this bridge isn& #39;t working for me" in ways that don& #39;t use those words exactly.
3a. Last thing for now: It& #39;s easier for reviewers to love a grant if they& #39;re excited about the story the grant is telling.
3b. I used to think about what studies I wanted to do & wrote a narrative around those studies. Then I learned to write the story I wanted to tell & put in the studies I would need to tell the story. Second thing is better writing & gets my lab more $.
