Go back

Independently minded

Image: nasir khan [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Flickr

A funder for early career social scientists unafraid to challenge orthodoxy

The Independent Social Research Foundation is a small, private funder based in London and registered in the Netherlands. Founded in 2008, it offers grants to”independent-minded” social scientists whose work addresses real-world problems.

The ISRF’s Early Career and Mid-Career Fellowship calls open in alternating years: 2021 is an Early Career year, and the call is open until 19 February. Fellowships are worth up to £60,000, or €66,000, depending on the host country, and are intended to replace the fellow’s salary for one year.

Funding Insight spoke with ISRF’s director of research, Chris Newfield, and its administrator, Stuart Wilson, about what the funder looks for from early career fellowship bids.

What’s the rationale behind the call?

CN: To help the rising generation establish itself, and to help identify novel approaches and original ideas, and work that might be getting overlooked elsewhere. We’re interested in finding niches that are underserved and scholars who are underrepresented.

Is the grant only for salary, or can it cover other things too?

SW: Usually applicants ask for a portion towards research expenses and that has to be match-funded by a host institution. It’s pretty standard for, say, £5,000 out of a £60,000 application to be for research expenses, so there would be £5,000 from the host institution as well.

What are the scheme’s vital statistics?

SW: We intend to make around five awards each time we launch one of our competitions. The application numbers vary. Sometimes it might be 100, other times 200. That variation makes a significant difference to the success rate.

The guidance mentions co-applicants who split the budget, and co-investigators who don’t. Could you elaborate?

SW: We receive few joint applications and have made just one joint award. People can hitch their carts, succeed or fail together, and bid as co-applicants, in which case they would split the total award money. Or they can take the other option, to submit two linked applications as co-investigators that could standalone if only one of them was awarded.

Your guidance says you like “controversial theoretical approaches”

CN: Yes, we look to support researchers who are addressing real-world problems, but looking past some of traditional approaches to those problems that have come to a dead end. Sometimes researchers can end up being put in a controversial position just by diverging from established approaches. Larger funders may feel an obligation to go with established methods. We’re interested in people trying different angles and we don’t shy away from any topics either.

You also welcome interdisciplinary approaches. Can you give an example of something that may be suitable?

CN: Yes, we’re happy to receive proposals where someone is looking at algorithmic instruction in computer science from the point of view of critical race theory. That would be an example of an issue that needs more than one field and training to address it.

How are proposals assessed?

CN: There are four rounds of selection. First, there’s an initial eligibility check. Then an external peer review round and an initial selection for a long-list. Then there’s a round with a smaller number of reviewers for a shortlist, and then a final selection panel with people affiliated with the foundation. That takes the shortlist of about 12 down to the five or six that are finally awarded. We like to offer whatever feedback we have to applicants. We also list, post-decision, all the people who have previously assessed for us if they give their permission. The intention is you can’t identify who your assessor was, but you can see the pool of people who have assessed for us.

How should applicants approach the application?

CN: We’ve constructed the sections in the application carefully. The section called ‘work plan’ in some ways seems menial compared with the conceptually demanding stuff you’re putting into the earlier sections. But it is important for giving assessors a sense that it’s possible to pull it off. It also sends a signal about whether you’ve thought the project through on a conceptual and practical level. 

Are there any common mistakes?

CN: We do get some incomplete, and not particularly well-proofread applications. We try to prevent those going out to assessors. Give yourself enough time to do justice to the quality of your thinking and the work you’ve already put into it. Don’t water it down to make it sound acceptable, because we’re interested in exciting and unusual, not familiar and reasonable for its own sake. It’s a cliche, but just focus on what really matters to you—what the core issues are and the main proposition which diverges from what other people have said. 

This is an extract from an article in Research Professional’s Funding Insight service. To subscribe contact sales@researchresearch.com