Grant writing often feels mysterious: What do reviewers actually read? What makes them reject a proposal within minutes? We are going to bring some clarities to these frequently asked questions during this week (9th-12th February 2026) grant writing and evaluation workshop organized by the Career Development Office of Umeå Postdoc Society.
The final session of our Grant Writing Seminar Series brought together two complementary perspectives: the reality of writing a proposal — and the long-term strategy behind building an independent research career.
We had two experienced and insightful speakers today: Ida Linander and Ryo Morimoto
Ida Linander
Our first speaker, Ida Linander, is a medical doctor and Associate Professor in Public Health at Umeå University’s Department of Epidemiology and Global Health. Ida’s talk was entitled “The Messy Process to Prepare a Research Application”
Her research focuses on health systems, equity in healthcare, access to services, and how policies shape health outcomes — including work on sexual and reproductive health, LGBTQ+ health, and violence in close relationships. Her projects often combine policy analysis with qualitative methods and address real-world societal challenges.
She opened with a refreshing honesty: writing a research application is rarely linear or clean. It is messy.
Which Funder? Which Problem? Which Approach?
Ida emphasized that before writing begins, you must ask:
- Which funder fits my research question?
- What type of problem am I addressing?
- How should I frame it for this specific call?
Different funders expect different emphases:
- Swedish Research Council (VR) places strong weight on scientific quality, originality, and theoretical contribution.
- Forte prioritizes societal relevance and real-world anchoring.
If you work with interdisciplinary or real-world societal challenges — as Ida does — complexity is natural. But complexity must be structured. You need to clearly explain:
- What is already known
- What the gap is
- Why the problem matters now
- How your project will fill that gap
Coherence across all sections is essential.
Making the Problem Understandable
Using her current work on ADHD in Sweden as an example, Ida stressed:
- Why is this important?
- What is the background problem?
- Why is it urgent?
- Why is your team the right team to address it — now?
Feasibility is not just about methods. It is about competence and timing.
Reviewers must be able to follow your protocol. If they cannot understand your methodological approach — particularly in qualitative research — doubt arises quickly.
“If colleagues from a slightly different field don’t understand your proposal, reviewers probably won’t either.”
Feedback, Patterns, and Team Discussions
One of Ida’s strongest recommendations: get input early — and from different people.
- Colleagues from adjacent fields
- Research support offices (particularly helpful in Sweden for VR and Forte applications)
- Even non-academic friends for clarity
Poor reviews, she noted, are not useless. They often reveal:
- What was unclear
- What seemed unconvincing
- What triggered doubt
Look for patterns across feedback.
In collaborative teams, discussion is crucial — but endless discussion is dangerous. In a large group (she currently works in a team of seven), ideas can easily diverge. Disagreement should be addressed before writing intensifies.
At some point, you must prioritize and decide.
“Things are not written in stone — but within the team, be clear about what is and what is not.”
Visuals, Structure, and Reviewer Fatigue
Dense text increases fatigue. Clear structure reduces it.
Ida encouraged using:
- Conceptual framework figures
- Study design overviews
- Timelines
- Tables outlining work packages and responsibilities
A good figure can clarify what 500 words cannot.
For those at Umeå University, she mentioned that the university’s in-house communication office can help refine professional visuals for grant applications.
Budgeting and Practicalities
Budgeting is not just administrative — it signals professionalism.
Be transparent within your team. If you promise someone 20% time, discuss adjustments openly if circumstances change.
She also encouraged exploring SweCRIS, where successful grant applications in Sweden are public documents. Studying funded proposals can provide insight into structure and tone.
Small grants can be powerful stepping stones. They allow you to build preliminary data and demonstrate novelty before aiming for larger funding.
Submission, Rejection, and Resubmission
Print your application and read it for ten minutes — that may be all the time a reviewer initially gives it.
Celebrate submission.
And when rejection comes — as it often does — do not take it personally.
Some funders allow resubmission (such as VR and Forte), while others, like Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, have stricter rules.
Discuss rejections with colleagues. Even senior professors are disappointed — they have simply experienced it more often.
Our second speaker, Ryo Morimoto, offered a different — but equally strategic — perspective. His talk was entitled “Achieving Research Independence: Grant Strategy, Timing, and Decision-Making”
A medical doctor by training, he moved from Japan to Germany, shifted from biochemistry to immunology and evolutionary biology, and in 2024 became a group leader with a substantial start-up package. His research focuses on adaptive immunity and evolutionary immunology, working across model systems.
His message was clear: grant applications are stepping stones toward a long-term career vision.
Analyse Yourself First
Before applying for grants or positions, ask:
- What is my five-year plan?
- Where am I in relation to the state of the art?
- What does the job market currently value?
- Am I ready — or am I rushing?
Ryo described how it took him roughly a year between intensive applications and securing his new position. A temporary gap can happen. Planning for that possibility is part of strategy.
Two Types of Independent Positions
He outlined two main paths:
- Research institute group leader positions (often fixed-term, e.g., 5+4 years, with strong start-up packages)
- University faculty positions (with or without tenure and varying start-up support)
Each requires different preparation — and sometimes negotiation with the host institution even before submitting the grant.
Mobility also matters. Are you willing to move countries? Institutions? Fields?
Building Toward Independence
Preparation should begin years before the application:
- Publications
- Conference presentations
- Small grants
- Teaching experience
- Leadership training (e.g., EMBO-style courses)
- Preliminary data
Interestingly, Ryo changed model systems entirely — from vertebrates to invertebrates — and recruited postdocs specialized in areas that complemented his expertise. Independence, in his view, means defining a scientific identity distinct from your supervisor’s.
”Why you — and not your supervisor?”
That question must be answered clearly.
Project Strategy and Balance
Strong applications balance:
- A safe, publishable component
- A challenging, high-risk/high-reward element
Feasibility is strengthened by preliminary data, clear recruitment plans, and realistic budgeting.
If you propose collaboration with ten future colleagues, it may seem unrealistic. Instead, demonstrate thoughtful integration into the specific environment you are applying to.
Know the department. Know the infrastructure. Know the committee.
Motivation Letters and Presentation
For position applications:
- Introduce yourself and your expertise
- Present your project plan and novelty
- Explain why that institute
- Highlight potential collaborations and infrastructure use
Be kind to reviewers. Use readable fonts. Follow page limits exactly. Tailor every application.
On AI use, Ryo was cautious: grammatical checking is acceptable, but generic AI-generated paragraphs are increasingly recognizable. Authenticity matters.
Final Takeaways from Day 4
The closing session of this seminar series brought everything together:
- Grant writing is messy — but structure can emerge from discussion.
- Funders differ — tailor strategically.
- Independence requires long-term vision.
- Analyse the job market honestly.
- Seek feedback widely.
- Balance ambition with feasibility.
- Do not interpret rejection as a verdict on your worth as a scientist.
As Ryo reminded us:
“Not having a good response does not necessarily mean your science is not good enough.”
Even if you are desperate for a position, do not accept one that does not allow for good research. But also avoid rigidity. Balance is essential.
Excerpts from this four days seminar series
Across these four sessions, one message echoed repeatedly:
Grant writing is not just about securing money.
It is about shaping your scientific identity, building collaborations, and positioning yourself for the next step.
Each proposal — successful or not — refines that process.
And perhaps the most reassuring lesson of all: even the most established researchers still face rejection, uncertainty, and revision.
What matters is that you keep going.
For any queries, please contact the Career Development Office of Umeå Postdoc Society (Najat Dzaki, Keshi Chung and Madhusree Mitra).
This post is part of a four‑part webinar series on grant writing and evaluation, based on a workshop organized by the Umeå Postdoc Society.
Day 1: What Reviewers Really Look For — insights from experienced evaluators
Day 2: Grant Writing Through a Young PI’s Eyes — lessons from the applicant side
Day 3: Designing Your Funding Strategy — structure, preparation, and long‑term thinking
Day 4: From Messy Drafts to Research Independence
Want to hear the grant writing seminar straight from the speakers instead of reading about it here? Click this link: Day 4
By Postdocs – For Postdocs!
