The Importance of the CV

One thing I quite ignored when preparing the application was my CV. I thought I had what I had, it looked decent enough, and adding a CV to my B1 would just be a mechanical action of cutting the CV I had to include only the information relevant for the grant application and moving sections around to correspond with the subheadings suggested in the template. In 2024, when I was applying, the template asked for max. 4 pages and had some suggested subheadings, but also made it clear that it could be modified as one saw necessary.

At first, I approached the task mechanically: just filling out the suggested sections (personal details, education and key qualifications, current positions, research achievements, etc.). I used the same bullet-point structure I had in my regular CV. Having filled everything out this way, I was left with under two pages of text. I didn’t worry too much about it: at every ERC-related workshop and in every YouTube video I saw, the speakers made sure to emphasize that the ERC Starting Grant is for scholars launching their independent research careers, so the CV will be judged according to one’s career stage. I did see my limitations: so far, I didn’t have any PhD supervision experience or any major individual grants. I listed my experience of being part of a team in major research projects, though, highlighting if I had a leadership role in them (as a co-PI, a work package lead).

I felt quite good about it until I received feedback on my part B1, of which the CV is part, from my research support contact person.

She pointed out that I was losing an opportunity by not using all four of the pages and by sticking to the dry bullet-point format.

I had heard that the narrative CV format was gaining popularity in Europe, but had never tried or even seen one myself. So, I followed the advice to explicate and elaborate on the points in my CV, especially the ones that might seem like limitations. I think, in the end, my CV was a mix of the standard and the narrative form, and I used up the full four pages.

For example, I added a summary to precede my “Research Achievements” section, framing my research interests and previous work as stepping stones toward the project I was suggesting. This seven-line paragraph was followed by the nine publications I thought were most relevant to the project but also demonstrated my ability to publish solo. For each publication, I also added a couple of lines under the reference to explain what’s inside and why it was relevant for the project. For example, in some articles I developed concepts that fed into the project, or applied theoretical approaches and methods that would be part of it.

I followed the same approach in other sections: bullet points followed by a short explanation of their relevance/importance. For example, in “Peer Recognition,” I explained the importance of the awards I received (they were an acknowledgment of the innovative nature of my work); in the section on research project administration I listed my experience of leadership positions in team projects and explained what I did in these roles and how it prepared me to lead something as big as an ERC Starting Grant; and in teaching and supervision I made sure to mention that I had been involved in informal mentoring of PhD students and was a PhD student rep on the board of a major research network. I removed the phrase “even though I have no PhD supervision experience” I initially had there. The reader would be able to see it for themselves — no need to draw extra attention to the fact :)

I think the advantage of doing it this way, instead of just cramming as many achievements as possible into these pages, was helping the evaluators see a story: a biography of a future PI who, even if she doesn’t have all the formal experience, is mindful of the experience she does have and can use in the next logical step.

The reason I now tell everyone that they shouldn’t ignore the CV part as a technicality is the way the reviewers referred to mine: I could see in their comments (and evaluators are asked to assess your promise as a PI in a separate section of the evaluation form) that they responded to what I did in the narrative parts, in my explanations. It was easier for them to see why all of this mattered and how it was all connected.