How to Win a Research Award
Nick Southgate, member of MRS Judging Panel
 The great pleasure of judging the MRS Awards is seeing how much interesting and excellent research goes on each year. Nonetheless, we are painfully aware that much excellent research is not written up for awards. This is something we must change.
As well as attracting more entries, we should also make sure those already entered are of the highest possible standard. .
It is a great frustration that far too many do not put their cases with sufficient clarity. Submissions hint at great insights, but don’t mention them. They allude to strong results, but nothing is shown. Far too often the writing obscures rather than illuminates.
We know the effort that goes into writing entries. We don’t like to see good research sold short by a misconceived submission.
To help stop this the judging panel has compiled a list of common errors and omissions.
Read The Exam Question
Each award has judging criteria. They are brief and we hope clear. Yet many submissions only have a passing resemblance to the award’s criteria. If the criteria are not addressed it is impossible to give it an award.
For example, the Application of Research Award – always the most keenly fought category –requires a demonstration of “a significant role for research in the decision-making process.”
Too often entries in this category describe a successful process in which research was only a bit-part player. The effect on any decision-making is marginal. Any success is clearly the result of other decisions. In contrast, successful authors place research in its wider context. This means they can make a convincing case that research was decisive within the process. It is surprising how many people hope to get an award for the good fortune of being commissioned to participate in someone else’s success!
A related failing hampers proprietary methods. Submissions credit these methods with success without explaining how the methodology works. Judges will only award the Acme Black Box Research Process if they are allowed to see inside the black box.
The criteria for all awards can be found online. The MRS is always happy to help clarify the criteria and help guide submissions into the right categories.
Show, Don’t Tell
Too many entries claim success without showing it. A classic tell-tale sign of this is the “Happy Client Quote”. It is flattering to receive glowing words of praise from your client. However, they nearly always assert success and do not argue for it. You may be flattered, the client may be flattered. The judges will not be. Likewise it is not necessary to tell the judges how successful you believe the work to be. Entering it for an award is proof enough of your pride.
Recycling new business case studies as awards entries also produces weak submissions. While this feels like a saving of time and effort it is a false economy. The language of publicity is markedly different to the language of logic and argument. New clients can be seduced and charmed. Judges need to be convinced.
There is also a simple trade-off at play – every lazy fluffy word pushes out a hardworking one.
Draft, draft and draft again
Clear argument and good writing win awards. Drafting and re-drafting will remove the jumps of argument, false correlations, unsupported assertions, inconsistencies and needless repetitions that let cases down. It should also improve the writing. Remove, as far as possible, all marketing jargon. ‘Marketese’ is a language designed to obscure failure. It, therefore, also obscures success. We are looking to see problems solved, not to see them redefined as challenges.
Finally, read your submission back. Try to read it with the eye of an intelligent observer. That is how the judges will read it. Eliminate the final typos, spelling errors and grammar slips.
Then feel proud and send it off.
Good luck with your submissions. We look forward to reading all your entries
Back to Research Awards 2009 |
