I was going through my semi-regular update of my CV because, frankly, if I don’t I won’t be able to keep track of everything! It’s as much for me as it is for others (and arguably more so these days).
Which got me thinking about grants, and how they’re recorded. On my CV, it’s a combination of year(s), project title, funding source, and grant amount. So far, all the grants that I’ve received have been one of two kinds:
- a grant / award for which I was the only applicant, like my two postdoc grants
- a grant where a small group (<5) of us wrote the application and got the funding
These have all been relatively small, bar our work on Northern Rockhopper Penguins, which was funded by the Darwin Initiative to the tune of £200,000, but where each of the five project partners is involved in just about everything. But as I progress, I expect more and more I’ll be just one part of a bigger piece of work. This inevitably leads to the question of how to list those grants.
I clearly didn’t have a hand in writing the whole grant, and would only be participating in a part of it (i.e., there will be funded activities and outcomes to which I know I won’t contribute, just because of the way the project was designed). So it seems disingenuous to list the full value of the grant (which, for these kinds of collaborative projects is likely to be in the £200,000-£1,000,000+ range). But equally, my specific part of the work package was part of the reason the project was funded.
So over to you, dear readers:
I’ll tally the results in a week or so.
The Lab and Field 
Why not list the full amount and your proportion/funds? Think that they reflect different things— the full amount reflects the scale of the project (and maybe some collaborative measure) and the proportion reflects your scale of involvement, perhaps
Thanks Abby – that’s what I was aiming at with the “list the proportion” option, nut just saying “15% of total”, but something like £500,000 (15% share)”
This too was unclear to me. I agree with something like “total: £500,000 (15% share)”
I list the total grant$$, the number of people on the grant, and the person who was the primary driver of it.
Same as Abby: give the total, and your share. Grant PI should be named too, if not you and if identifiable.
I think that you have to consider the audience for your CV and the level of detail that they would be interested in. In most cases listing the full amount and a comment as to whether you were Co-I or PI, etc., is probably sufficient. Providing the % only gives part of the story and puts the main emphasis on the money rather than the science.
Related to Jeff’s comment, the full amount comments on the scope and perceived “impact” (maybe not the best term, and I’m not trying to slight smaller grants) of the project.
For academics in the US (what I know best), listing the full amount and your relationship to the grant are pretty standard. I see plenty of announcements from universities along the lines of “Prof. So-and-so was awarded a $x million grant!” We know there are almost certainly multiple people involved in that grant, though.
Pingback: 2019 by the numbers | The Lab and Field
Pingback: 2020 by the numbers | The Lab and Field