To Apply or Not to Apply: A Survey Analysis of Grant Writing Costs and Benefits

TL;DR

This survey analyzes the effort, success, and perceived benefits of grant writing among astronomers and psychologists, revealing that effort correlates with success but not funding likelihood, and that low funding rates threaten researcher participation.

Contribution

It provides empirical data on grant-writing efforts, success rates, and perceptions across disciplines, highlighting the impact of funding rates on researcher engagement.

Findings

Effort correlates with funding success.

Time spent on proposals does not predict funding outcome.

Funding rates below 20% may discourage researchers.

Abstract

We surveyed 113 astronomers and 82 psychologists active in applying for federally funded research on their grant-writing history between January, 2009 and November, 2012. We collected demographic data, effort levels, success rates, and perceived non-financial benefits from writing grant proposals. We find that the average proposal takes 116 PI hours and 55 CI hours to write; although time spent writing was not related to whether the grant was funded. Effort did translate into success, however, as academics who wrote more grants received more funding. Participants indicated modest non-monetary benefits from grant writing, with psychologists reporting a somewhat greater benefit overall than astronomers. These perceptions of non-financial benefits were unrelated to how many grants investigators applied for, the number of grants they received, or the amount of time they devoted to writing their proposals. We also explored the number of years an investigator can afford to apply unsuccessfully for research grants and our analyses suggest that funding rates below approximately 20%, commensurate with current NIH and NSF funding, are likely to drive at least half of the active researchers away from federally funded research. We conclude with recommendations and suggestions for individual investigators and for department heads.