Exploring early career researchers' perspectives of training and funding opportunities: Motivations and setbacks when applying for the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Research's fellowships and research funding

Despite the availability of training and funding opportunities with the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), early career researchers (ECRs) invaria-bly experience concern in sustaining an academic career in health research given the uncertainties of success following rejection from peer-reviewed funding bodies. The objective of this study was to consider what motivates ECRs when applying for funding to NIHR programmes and how they overcome funding setbacks. Eleven ECRs took part in a one-to-one virtual in-depth interview; the sample included more women ( n = 8) than men ( n = 3) and partic ipants included pre-doctoral researchers ( n = 5), and both doctoral ( n = 2) and post-doctoral ( n = 4) ECRs. The interviews were analysed using the logic of a systems theory framework identifying factors impacting on ECRs occurring within an individual, within their social system and within their broader environment. The central themes that emerged from the data focussed on: (1) facilitators for ECRs to apply for NIHR funding; (2) exploring ECRs' setbacks and


| INTRODUCTION
Over the past 15 years, the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) has invested heavily in the biomedical and health research workforce in England, with the express aim to attract, develop and retain research professionals, building research capacity through skills development, mentorship and dedicated clinical academic career pathways. 1 NIHR training programmes targeting early career researchers (ECRs) (a term widely used in UK higher education institutions) 2 offer a large array of career development opportunities for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals (NMAHPs), dentists and doctors and non-clinically based health researchers, competitively awarded through a rigorous selection process. 1 A total of 673 NIHR Personal Awards have been granted out of 2831 applications between 2017 and 2021, with an average success rate of 24% (reported by financial year). Total success rates across the programmes (with awards being aimed at doctoral, post-doctoral, advanced and professorial fellowships) have increased for all personal awards from 21% in 2017/18 to 30% in 2020/21. 3 The recent growth in successes seem impressive at 9%, but the application process of achieving funding success is beset by setbacks given the time invested by applicants, as shown by our study. Aside from fellowships, ECRs also have the opportunity to apply for NIHR's Research for Patient Benefit Programme as a joint lead applicant, or as a co-applicant on NIHR's other programmes. There is no publicly data available on the career stage of applicants for such programmes.
Despite the availability of NIHR training and funding opportunities, ECRs experience ongoing concern in sustaining an academic career given the uncertainties of success following rejection from peer-reviewed funding bodies. 4,5 ECRs face some of the toughest challenges to progress their careers inside or outside of academia, as there are notable barriers due to lower salaries, overdependence on competing for funding, unclear career pathways, and no obvious re-entry point for ECRs following a career break. 6 For ECRs working in health and social care settings, there are issues around poorly resourced infrastructure, low expertise and limited capacity to increase opportunities to conduct research. 7 Even with these barriers, ECRs seem undeterred from applying for NIHR fellowship and training opportunities.

| METHODS
Recruitment procedures: Participants (ECRs) were identified through gate-keepers via Research Design Service (RDS) Directors, Deputy Directors and Research Advisors across eight RDS regions in England. Each region identified between one to two participants. With their permission, participants agreed to share their contact details with the project lead (FH) at the University of Kent. FH approached participants using a participant information email inviting them to the study. Participants had the chance to ask questions via email before agreeing to take part. Prior to the interview, informed consent was obtained from participants.
Participant characteristics and background details: Participant characteristics and background information were collected as part of the interview and prefaced the in-depth discussion. This included information on age, gender identity, ethnic background and other protected characteristics (see Table 1), and was input into an Excel spreadsheet for analysis.

Conduct of interviews and data collection:
The topic guide was developed in collaboration by the author (FH) and all four co-authors (JH, BE, RB, CN) who suggested interview questions, that were then reviewed by the whole team for consistency and coherence (please refer to Supplementary File 1). As ethical approval was attained through the University of Kent, only the lead author (FH based at the University) was able to conduct the interviews. Interviews  within an individual, within the individual's social system and within the individual's broader environment. 8,9 This framework provides a way of conceptualising the wide range of influences that are likely to impact on ECRs' career development. 8 Validity (or trustworthiness) was established using the guidelines stated by Guba and Lincoln (2005) consistent with natural inquiry focussed around four criteria: (i) credibility; (ii) transferability; (iii) dependability; and (iv) confirmability. 10 The researcher's immersion in the research process involved analysis, debriefing and reflection steps undertaken to achieving validity. 11 Data saturation was achieved when no new information gave rise to new codes from the interviews, as informants did not express any novel ideas or perspectives thereby reaching "information redundancy". 12

| RESULTS
We received a response from 11 ECRs who agreed to be interviewed, from seven out of eight RDSs (https://ww.nihr. ac.uk/explore-nihr/support/research-design-service.htm RDS weblink). Our sample included more women (n = 8) than men (n = 3) and participants included pre-doctoral researchers (n = 5), and both doctoral (n = 2) and post-doctoral (n = 4) ECRs. The ethnic backgrounds of participants were: British Indian (n = 1), White British (n = 5), White/White other (n = 3) and unspecified (n = 2). Seven participants were health and social care professionals, while four were ECRs with an academic background with an interest in a health-related topic (see Table 1).
Despite the data capturing a wide-range of experiences and responses (see Supplementary File 2, Data Saturation Grid), the results reported in this paper aim at addressing our central research questions on: What are the intrinsic motivations of ECRs when applying to NIHR programmes and how do they overcome funding setbacks? The relevant themes that emerged from the data were developed using a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding using qualitative methods of thematic analysis, and incorporated using a logic of systems theory framework, 13 and were salient to our questions, focussed on: (1) facilitators for ECRs to apply for NIHR funding; (2) exploring ECRs' setbacks and disappointments; (3) improving chances of funding; and lastly, (4) deciding to apply with a view to re-applying in future (see Table 2).

| Facilitators for ECRs to apply for NIHR funding
The ECRs expressed some specific factors which led them to apply for NIHR funding. They spoke about improving the evidence base in their profession, shaping clinical practice and building networks across their trusts. Early career researchers also spoke about applying for fellowships to develop and build on previous research that had been undertaken as part of a programme of PhD study.

| Exploring ECRs' setbacks and disappointments
Early career researchers identified a range of views about their experiences of applying for funding. Despite being noted as a positive experience, the participants were conscious of their time investment, as well as the physical and emotional demands required of a funding application, without any assurances of being successful. A common theme for ECRs with a clinical background was the lack of support from their organisations to pursue research with no mechanisms in place for any backfill arrangements for their time, should their application for funding be successful.

| Improving chances of funding
Participants found talking with previously successful applicants helpful for feedback on their application, revising their application based on the comments from the funding panel on an unsuccessful application and understanding who to put together in their research team to improve chances of success. The RDS was also noted as a valued resource providing essential methodological guidance and research design support to improve the quality of their application.

| Deciding to apply with a view to re-applying in future
The informants acknowledged that they saw the application process as a way of perfecting their application, being strategic with understanding the review process and becoming cognisant of the views of the funding panel. The ECRs accepted that even if they were not going to be successful first time around, they would apply in the following year having improved their application skills and techniques.

| DISCUSSION
Early career researchers mentioned a range of facilitators that motivated them to apply for funding including: contributing to an evidence base, bringing PhD findings into an applied area of health research, being persuaded and We found that some ECRs embraced disappointment almost expecting failure, with a view to turning a funding setback into an opportunity to build on an application as a starting point for their next application. Wang et al (2019) 5 found in their analysis of the United States' junior scientist programme for the National Institutes of Health grants, that in fact early career setbacks had a powerful opposing effect, hurting some careers, but surprisingly, strengthening outcomes for others. 5 Perhaps ECRs who anticipate disappointment arrive at the realisation much earlier on in their academic careers that failure to secure funding is an inevitable aspect of the current system in academia, with reliance on competition for the distribution of research funding by government. 15 Strategies to support ECRs to be successful in their funding applications and become lead research investigators are essential to help grow a research-ready health and social care workforce in order to expand the evidence base to ships and research funding programmes have the potential to foster and develop ECRs across local and regional health and social care ecosystems in partnership with the university sector, and collectively such collaborations are crucial to sustain system-wide gains including greater staff retention and financial benefits to the health and social care system. 7 The main limitation of our study is that our overall sample was small with a total of 11 ECRs interviewed. Their responses are not representative of all ECRs who have applied to NIHR for research funding. However, their comments provide an honest and frank reflection of the uncertainties and experiences of ECRs in a highly competitive research environment. Participants were recruited from a pool of ECRs who were already engaged with the NIHR's RDSs and its infrastructure. Therefore participants interviewed had insight of the NIHR and its funding programmes and were in receipt or had been in receipt of support from their RDS. We suggest further research on strategies for supporting ECRs including coaching to deal with disappointment, tapping into academic mentorship programmes and better access to local support networks, which could in part be facilitated through existing NIHR research infrastructure through the regional RDSs. At an organisational level integration of research as a priority area needs to be embedded into its strategic plans. 16

| CONCLUSIONS
Our study set out to understand why ECRs apply for funding to NIHR, given the competitive nature of applications and funding outcomes. Despite the hurdles, the respondents felt that the application and review process was still worth investing their time in, as the prospect of improving their chances for funding increased, if they persevered with feedback from funding panels and colleagues, alongside working with grant support services. There was little discord around questioning or challenging the process in which research funds are allocated and administered. The implications of our research suggest that the validity and strength of competitively-run funding programmes and grant review processes is an accepted part of an ECRs career trajectory with successfully awarded research funding seen as a mechanism to build careers and research portfolios.