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.
Day 2: The second day of our grant writing workshop shifted focus from reviewers to applicants — specifically, to the young PI perspective. Today’s speaker, Polina Kurtser, offered an honest, grounded account of what it actually looks like to build a funding track record early in an academic career.
What made this session particularly special was that Polina is one of our own: a former postdoc at Umeå University, previously active in the very same Career Development Office, and now an Associate Professor in the Department of Computing Science at UmU.
Polina is currently part of a collaborative robotics lab where seven PIs work together, highlighting how modern academic research is increasingly team-based rather than individual.
From Postdoc to Young PI
Her funding experience spans several major agencies, including:
- Kempe Foundations
- Vinnova
- The Swedish Cancer Foundation
Not all of these applications were successful — and that, as she emphasized, is entirely normal.
Lessons from Rejections
Some grant applications received strong evaluations but were ultimately rejected due to:
- Mismatch with the call scope
- Incorrect or imprecise scientific framing
A recurring issue was not the idea itself, but how it was communicated.
“You may know exactly what you want to do, but if you fail to explain it using the right scientific language and framing, reviewers cannot support it.”
Failure is an expected part of grant writing. What matters is how you use rejection to adjust your strategy, especially if you plan to stay in academia.
She also highlighted a common pitfall: asking for too little support, too late, which can easily lead to stalled progress or deadlock.
What Worked: Small Wins and Smart Collaborations
Among her successes, Polina highlighted:
- Small, targeted grants with a clear and realistic vision
- Collaboration grants designed for early-career researchers
She also discussed the co-PI perspective: joining larger collaborative grants by clearly identifying what unique expertise you bring to the project.
“You don’t need to lead every grant. Sometimes the smartest move is to strengthen a bigger project with your contribution.”
Strategic Insights on Funding
The discussion highlighted several practical insights:
- It is rare to receive the full amount you apply for
- Small projects and collaborations still require substantial time and effort — choose them carefully
- Many grants are effectively targeted at established or permanent positions, even if this is not always stated explicitly
One particularly thought-provoking question she encouraged applicants to ask themselves:
“Do you actually want to do what you promise in the proposal — or are you just trying to add a line to your CV?”
Audience Questions & Practical Advice
Extending Your Current Project
If you want to add a new direction to your ongoing project:
- Talk to your PI first
- Use preliminary results strategically
- Frame the extension as your future funding line
Grants’ vs Positions: Which Comes First?
Polina shared her own path:
- She received smaller grants early on
- Larger grants came after securing her position
While grants are not formally dependent on job titles, having a permanent or professorial position often opens additional funding opportunities, as some major grants explicitly require them.
Mentorship Matters
Early in her career, Polina admitted she:
- Asked for too little help, or
- Asked too late
Once she began actively seeking feedback, her supervisor provided valuable insights. Later, as a PI herself, she found strong support from:
- Research support offices
- Colleagues and peers
(This reflects the Swedish academic context; support structures may differ across countries.)
Changing Fields and Building Bridges
Switching fields is possible — but challenging.
One viable strategy is to:
- Keep your core techniques
- Apply them in a new field where such expertise is lacking
Successful transitions often require strong collaborators. Building these bridges can pay off, but the outcome is never guaranteed.
Using AI in Grant Writing: With Caution
Polina also addressed the growing role of AI tools in grant writing.
She highlighted a particular challenge in her fields, such as automation and robotics: addressing the gender consideration section when no direct human participants are involved. AI tools can assist in this process.
Her stance was clear:
- AI can help you clarify ideas, especially for sections like gender considerations or bouncing an idea during early brainstorming
- AI should not be used to generate generic content
- You remain fully responsible for the core ideas, framing, and scientific claims
“As long as it is your idea — and you understand what is written — AI can be a tool. But the responsibility is always yours.”
Final Reflections
Day 2 offered a realistic and reassuring message: there is no single correct path to funding success. Progress is often built through small wins, strategic collaborations, timely support, and learning from rejection.
Hearing this from someone who recently navigated the same system — and did so within your own institution — made these lessons especially tangible.
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 2
