How to write a successful ARC Laureate Fellowship Application
Prof geoff fincher | June 2024
The following observations about how to write a successful ARC Laureate Fellowship application are offered by Prof Geoff Fincher, drawing on his experience as a Laureate SAC Panel member, and supporting successful Laureate applicants during his time as a Senior Associate with Outside Opinion.
Prof Geoff Fincher
Laureate Fellowship applications are submitted by researchers who are at the top of their careers and among the best in the country. You would therefore expect to see high quality research track records paired with significant scientific or methodological expertise to back their proposed Laureate program.
The challenge therefore is to go beyond the already high level of excellence that becomes the norm in these applications, to find the point of difference. That difference will usually reside in the merit, excellence and excitement of the project itself.
I offer three main ways that make a stellar, and fundable application stand out from the rest.
Capture attention
Part A of the application (summary/benefits) is crucially important to attract the attention of the ARC panel members. Squeezing specific examples into these very small boxes is difficult but very important, otherwise there can be little to distinguish it and capture the Panel’s attention.
Be specific
When the standard is already high, being as specific as possible is the best way to find a ‘hook’ or an edge to capture both Assessors and the Panel’s attention. There are several opportunities for this:
1. The publication track records of competing applicants will be uniformly high, so may not be a particularly discriminative factor in the ranking. Similarly, the experimental achievements of successful senior scientists will be apparent to the ARC panel and detailed descriptions of the general methodologies to be used can be minimised. However, if an innovative new method is to be used, then some detail as to how the data generated will create novel insights will be essential and should also be mentioned in the Part A summary and benefits sections.
2. The presentation of quite specific examples of how outcomes will be applied to address specific national objectives and generate benefits for Australia. In many cases applicants refer to outcomes and benefits in general terms only. Mostly, these are not convincing.
3. The application form may not ask for a list of past research grants, which in many cases represent a strong argument for the applicant’s ability and expertise in the field. I suggest applicants consider listing these, where they can find space.
4. Where previous research in the field has missed opportunities for novel applications to the subject matter or discipline, say this, without devoting too much space to establishing the prospective Fellow’s credibility in the discipline. Their credibility and skill will be understood and assumed, but their critical thinking around the ‘state of play’ is their edge.
5. Applicants usually assemble a list of national and international collaborators, but often do not state precisely what their roles will be, what technologies or methodologies they will bring to the project and why the expertise is not available at the home institution. As a panel member, I saw many cases where I concluded a collaborator had been included simply because of their strong academic record and that they would play no significant role in the project.
Keep the legacy in focus
An innovative research project and a convincing description as to how the research data will be translated into national benefits are central to a good Laureate application; with specific and preferably quantitated examples rather than general, broadly-based proclamations of benefits. How has the applicant’s past experience generated a strong base from which a quantum leap in scientific knowledge can be achieved through the Laureate Fellowship? And all applicants should try to include a ‘wow’ factor in their applications; there will almost certainly be one but they are often left unstated!
