Pathways to an ERC Grant: Learning from Success and Failure

The author reflects on his journey from a rejected Starting Grant to a successful Consolidator Grant, arguing that the key to success lies in crafting a simple, surprising, and true narrative hook that contrasts the proposed research with conventional approaches. He advises applicants to sequence their writing by starting with the narrative hook, developing a feasible research design based on available resources, and preparing the CV and track record early. The author emphasizes the importance of soliciting frank feedback to overcome the 'curse of knowledge' and warns against blindly following external consultants. Finally, he acknowledges the inherent arbitrariness and subjectivity of the evaluation process, suggesting that the intensive writing process itself is a valuable scholarly exercise regardless of the funding outcome.

• The most critical element of a successful ERC proposal is a strong core narrative that is simple, surprising, and true to the project's substance. A narrative hook should create a specific and persuasive contrast with conventional research without disparaging existing work.
• Applicants should sequence their work by first pinning down the narrative hook in a few sentences, then developing the rough contours of the research design, team composition, and empirical foundations before drafting the full proposal.
• Budgeting and personnel planning must be adapted to the applicant's specific institutional and geographic context, as costs and available support vary significantly.
• The CV and track record should be prepared early to avoid time pressure and should use a narrative strategy that is specific and fact-based to demonstrate intellectual capacity and creativity.
• To overcome the 'curse of knowledge' — the inability to imagine a reader's lack of specialized knowledge — applicants should seek frank feedback from both specialists and non-specialists.
• While external consultants can provide useful perspectives, applicants must trust their own judgment and be cautious of advice that may strip the proposal of its authenticity or necessary detail.
• ERC evaluations are necessarily subjective and contain an element of arbitrariness, meaning that even high-quality proposals may be rejected based on the specific selection of reviewers.

APA

Carling, J. (2019). Pathways to an ERC Grant: Learning from Success and Failure. Peace Research Institute Oslo. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/58dd7d6f-e360-482d-a56b-296924f43442/Carling Jorgen - Pathways to an ERC Grant - PRIO Paper 2019.pdf?inline=true

Chicago

Carling, Jørgen. Pathways to an ERC Grant: Learning from Success and Failure. Peace Research Institute Oslo, 2019. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/58dd7d6f-e360-482d-a56b-296924f43442/Carling Jorgen - Pathways to an ERC Grant - PRIO Paper 2019.pdf?inline=true.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Carling |first1=Jørgen |title=Pathways to an ERC Grant: Learning from Success and Failure |publisher=Peace Research Institute Oslo |date=November 2019 |url=https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/58dd7d6f-e360-482d-a56b-296924f43442/Carling Jorgen - Pathways to an ERC Grant - PRIO Paper 2019.pdf?inline=true |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{carling2019pathways, author = {Carling, Jørgen}, title = {{Pathways to an ERC Grant: Learning from Success and Failure}}, institution = {Peace Research Institute Oslo}, year = {2019}, month = nov, url = {https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/58dd7d6f-e360-482d-a56b-296924f43442/Carling Jorgen - Pathways to an ERC Grant - PRIO Paper 2019.pdf?inline=true}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }