Professor Sarah Powell - "Pursuing Funding for Your Research"
The day began with Professor Sarah Powell's keynote presentation. The keynote included practical tips and personal experiences of building and funding your own research project by applying for grants. She shared a behind-the-scenes look at her impressive list of successfully funded projects, alongside an even longer list of folders containing applications that never received funding. Even for a highly successful researcher such as Prof. Powell, approximately 80-85% of grant applications may not receive funding. She noted that grant writing is a skill that develops through practice, and researchers do not receive funding for projects they never submit. A practical tip is to learn from successful applications, including directly asking colleagues and researchers to share funded proposals. It is also important to identify and stay true to one’s research topic that brings joy, while remaining flexible enough to adapt those interests to different funding opportunities.
A substantial part of the keynote focused on practical grant writing. The core elements of a research grant application are often the same, consisting of the significance of the project, the research plan, personnel, and resources. Prof. Powell highlighted the importance of detailed planning, recommending the use of tables for timelines, sample sizes, and measurement plans. The importance of team work and choosing the right team was also emphasised. Prof. Powell drew parallels between planning a research project and founding a small business, potentially consisting of a group of PIs, methodologists, a project director, implementation team, advisory board, graphic designers, budget administrators, human resources, and a website developer.
These examples led to an interesting discussion about differences between grant systems in Finland and the United States, particularly regarding team size, project budgets, and administrative support.
Dr. Piia Ruutu - “Kone Foundation funding instrument”
Following the keynote, Dr. Piia Ruutu talked about her Kone Foundation grant application and the application process. From a practical perspective, some of the differences between her successful and unsuccessful applications include the concise descriptions, visualisations, and detailed implementation plans.
Kone Foundation's values include academic and artistic freedom, diversity, boldness, perseverance, ecosocial awareness, sense of community, and truth.
Dr. Lotta Uusitalo - "From Research to Social Innovation" Getting funding for research-based scalable ideas
Next, Dr. Lotta Uusitalo presented funding opportunities for research-based ideas with broader societal impact. Using the Positive CV and See the Good projects as examples, she demonstrated how research projects can be developed into scalable social initiatives. The Positive CV project aims to document children's strengths, achievements, and positive feedback from teachers, peers, family members, and friends through both printed and digital formats. The presentation also included examples from other funded and unfunded projects, illustrating the opportunities and challenges involved in social innovation funding.
The panel discussion that turned the tables
So far, the seminar had explored grant applications from the applicant's perspective. But how does the process look from the other side of the table, from the perspective of the reviewers evaluating those applications?
The lively panel discussion titled "Reviewer Perspective on Funding Applications" featured grant application reviewers Professor Sarah Powell, Professor Pirjo Aunio, and Professor Johan Korhonen, chaired by Dr. Terhi Vessonen. Rather than a traditional panel discussion, Terhi introduced a series of statements to which the panelists first had to respond only with "yes" or "no" before defending their position. The format quickly revealed both consensus and disagreement, making for an entertaining discussion while offering a rare glimpse into how reviewers think.
What would your answers have been?
The first statement to agree or disagree with was:
"Ambitious goals of projects are more important than feasibility when you evaluate a project."
Sarah Powell and Pirjo Aunio answered no, while Johan Korhonen answered yes. The disagreement turned out to be less dramatic than it first appeared. Powell emphasised the importance of focused and measurable outcomes rather than trying to solve every problem at once. Aunio noted that some applications include such extensive measurement packages that they would realistically take years to complete. Korhonen agreed that feasibility matters, but argued that a project must also push the field forward. A perfectly feasible project may still fail if it does not advance research in a meaningful way.
The next statement generated immediate agreement:
"Methodological rigor is one of the most outstanding aspects that you pay attention to when evaluating a project."
All three panelists answered yes. The discussion highlighted the importance of alignment between research questions, data, and analyses. Korhonen pointed out that applications often struggle when researchers propose methodological approaches they do not fully master. Powell stressed the importance of clarity, timelines, figures, and precise descriptions of methods, while Aunio observed that reviewers can usually tell when applicants are following methodological trends without fully understanding the data or analytical choices behind them. The discussion also turned briefly to AI-generated figures and visuals, with several panelists and participants noting that poorly edited AI-generated material can undermine an otherwise strong application.
Another statement produced a split response:
"Theoretical foundations of the research are generally poorly described in grant applications."
Aunio and Korhonen answered yes, while Powell answered no. The discussion shifted towards the challenge of writing for reviewers who may not be specialists in the exact topic area. Aunio emphasised the importance of consistent terminology and avoiding unnecessarily complex conceptual language. Powell argued that the first page is often the most important part of the application: reviewers should immediately understand the problem, why it matters, and how the proposed project will address it. Korhonen added that theoretical arguments must be clearly justified rather than simply adding another variable or concept without explaining why it is needed.
Complete agreement returned when the panel considered:
“You should revise your project plan in accordance with the specific grant strategies”
All panelists answered yes. Powell explained that reviewers often assess applications against explicit criteria listed in the call. Using the exact terminology from the criteria is advised, such as making “broader impact” or “intellectual merit” as their own sections if such terms appear on the call rubric. At the same time, the discussion connected back to Piia Ruutu's earlier presentation and highlighted an important distinction. Powell was referring to the evaluation rubric and the criteria used by reviewers, whereas Ruutu had discussed broader foundation values and strategies. While applicants should respond directly to the criteria of a call, connections to a foundation's values such as boldness or diversity should not simply be repeated as keywords. Instead, those qualities should be evident in the project itself.
What do the reviewers think about the next statement?
"Reviewing grant applications is very similar to reviewing journal articles."
While Aunio answered yes, both Powell and Korhonen answered no.
Korhonen noted that article reviewers are usually experts on the exact topic, whereas grant reviewers may be evaluating proposals from neighbouring fields. For that reason, grant applications often need broader and clearer language. Powell and Korhonen also reminded applicants that reviewers often have limited time, making clear structure and communication essential.
Aunio emphasised that, regardless of whether one is reviewing a manuscript or a grant proposal, reviewers look for similar points: Does the application flow logically? Can the research questions be answered with the proposed methods? Does the rationale make sense? Are the key references in place? Agreeing with the other panelists, she noted that the grant application should be easy to follow and persuasive even to someone outside the immediate research area.
The discussion then turned to conflicts of interest. Similarly to reviewing manuscripts, reviewers cannot assess applications from close collaborators or family members. If a reviewer feels unable to remain objective, they can step aside from the review process. The panel also noted that applications are typically assessed by multiple reviewers, helping to ensure a balanced evaluation.
Terhi Vessonen then followed up by asking what applicants should understand about the reviewing process itself. A recurring theme in the responses was that reviewers have limited time. Reviewers should not have to decipher why a project matters and do not need to be experts in a topic to understand a strong application with a clear rationale and coherent argument. Powell, Aunio, and Korhonen all encouraged applicants to have others read and comment on their proposals before submission.
For the next statement, the panelists agreeably disagreed or rather disagreeably agreed:
“Collaboration between researchers in the project is not important in your evaluation of the project.”
In other words, all three panelists rejected the statement and stressed that collaboration is indeed something they pay close attention to when evaluating a project. Collaboration should serve a clear purpose. Aunio noted that reviewers often recognise and disapprove when famous researchers have been added to a proposal primarily because of their reputation rather than their actual role in the project. Powell illustrated the point with a practical example: a researcher listed as contributing only five percent of their time amounts to roughly twelve minutes of work per week. Reviewers want to understand who is doing what and why each person is needed.
The final statement may be particularly encouraging for early-career researchers:
"You should not apply to grants before you publish a specific number of papers."
Here the answer was again unanimous: No. As Powell concluded, strong science, sound methodology, and clear outcomes matter more than reaching an arbitrary publication threshold.
Dr. Terhi Vessonen - Applying to international research positions
After the intensive morning sessions and a lunch break, Dr. Terhi Vessonen gave an impromptu informal presentation about her experiences applying for international postdoctoral positions. She discussed interviews, rejections, expectations, and the process that eventually led to her current position in Texas. Her motivational story began with a nervous email to a respected know researcher on the topic of her interest (none other than Prof. Sarah Powell), to organising symposiums together at the MCLS conference, meeting other research groups, and finally opening doors to a job position in their team.
Dr. Olli-Pekka Malinen - Exchange funding schemes USA-Finland
The day continued with Dr. Olli-Pekka Malinen’s introduction of Fulbright funding opportunities that support academic exchange between Finland and the United States. In addition to outlining the available funding schemes, he shared a personal example of how professional networks and reaching out to form connections helped him establish a collaboration that ultimately led to a successful Fulbright application. His presentation highlighted a recurring theme of the day: researchers are often willing to help if people are willing to ask.
Dr. Kati Sormunen - Technology Industries of Finland Centennial Foundation funding instruments
The final presentation was given by Dr. Kati Sormunen, who introduced funding opportunities through the example of the
Concluding words
Although the presentations focused on different career stages, countries, grants, and project types, several common themes emerged throughout the day. Successful applications require a strong research idea, but also careful planning, methodological rigour, clarity, and realistic implementation. Equally importantly, many of the speakers shared personal examples that reminded us that behind any success story, there are numerous failed attempts and rejected applications. Another recurring theme was the importance of seeking support from others. From Terhi Vessonen’s example of connecting with researchers who later opened her the opportunity to apply and receive her current position, to Olli-Pekka Malinen's story of building a collaboration through professional networks, the presentations repeatedly highlighted that researchers are often far more willing to help than we might assume. Together, these examples offered a reassuring reminder that academic careers are built not only on success, but also on persistence, collaboration, and the willingness to keep trying.
We warmly thank Professor Sarah Powell, Dr. Terhi Vessonen, and all presenters and participants for the discussions throughout the day!