*Ping*

You have a new connection request on LinkedIn.

*Ping*

Elanie Rodermond has sent you a message on LinkedIn.

I furrow my brows. Elanie Rodermond? I only know her from the classes she taught during my master’s at VU. I open her message and see that she is looking for a PhD candidate for research on the effects of parental detention on the children involved. Last year, I was already involved in this NWO grant process because of another PhD project, and she was also involved in that. I didn’t get past the first round then, but now she wants to try again and thought of me. She thought of me?

After some chatting and Zoom meetings, we decide, along with Catrien Bijleveld and Steve van de Weijer, to go for it.

From the moment Elanie messaged me in December 2022, we had two months to put together my narrative CV and really emphasize why I’m the best they’ve ever seen in academia. It was very awkward to write a text in which I had to sell myself like an amazing product, but luckily the NSCR has a good grant advisor who could turn my modest experience into a convincing sales pitch.

After submitting, the waiting began. And with such a grant application, there’s a lot of waiting. If you’re not patient by nature, you become so in the process. Many people around me kept asking about the status, and for a year, I continually said that I was waiting for the result of the next round.

This year, I made it past the first round (150 applications) and, along with 80 others, I was allowed to further develop my research proposal. Which meant sitting down with my supervisors to discuss which research directions I found interesting and which methods we would use. The topic ‘children of incarcerated parents’ is very broad, so choices had to be made.

I found it interesting to look at the difference between whether the mother or father is in prison and whether the effects differ for sons or daughters. I could imagine that the type of crime that led to detention influences the extent to which criminality is passed on to children. After all, in criminology, it’s known that organized crime often runs in families, while a standalone violent offense might be less likely to be inherited by children.

Given the ethnic bias in police and justice statistics and the overrepresentation of some migrant backgrounds in issues like housing shortages and poverty, we decided to include migration background in the proposal as well. We thought this group might already be disadvantaged and wanted to research if they might need different or additional support in contact with their children during detention.

The research proposal was also positively reviewed, leading me to the final round of the grant application. This meant I, along with 24 other candidates, was invited to present in October 2023. This wasn’t just any presentation but one for a ten-member jury of scientists from various disciplines, followed by a critical Q&A about my research proposal. To prepare, I worked with two professionals: one to help me with making my PowerPoint more attractive and one who had me practice presenting all day to prepare for the ‘moment suprême.’

I arrived at the hotel. There were all kinds of snacks and drinks, but nerves kept me from eating. Okay, my presentation coach said I should keep breathing.. So I did a breathing exercise and walked in.

All the scientists on the jury introduced themselves, and then I delivered the best version of my presentation. But the worst was yet to come. I knew one of the scientists on the jury from my bachelor’s in Rotterdam, and I knew his dissertation was on migration backgrounds so I braced myself for this critical questions about including migration background in my proposal. And what do you think? The first question was from him and exactly what I expected. Imagine answering questions in such a setting with everyone having excellent poker faces that you have no idea if you gave a great answer of they’re thinking: What are you even talking about?

Three long months went by before I heard whether my presentation and Q&A were good enough to get the grant. By then, I’d been in this process for a year, and those around me were becoming critical: What if you don’t get it? Then you’ve wasted a year of your time! You could have been working elsewhere long ago.

And then, finally, just before Christmas, the redeeming word came: I finished in 4th place out of the 150 pre-applications, which meant I got the grant! After receiving this news, I became a call center for half a day because I wanted to inform everyone immediately. It felt surreal that after a year of waiting and being in the unknown, the final result was there and I made it. I felt relief after I finally got the confirmation that my input throughout this year was good enough to be granted with the Mosaic grant. I eventually started at NSCR on April 1st, where I’m surrounded by many other PhD students.

All in all, it was a turbulent year, but I’m glad I persevered. I am quite a patient person, but waiting for something where you have no idea if you did a great job or not, is a new kind of challenge. For anyone who is going through this process, I would highly recommend being transparent with your supervisors about your doubts and don’t feel shy to accept all the support and guidance they offer you. The presentation training I described before really helped me to be calm during the big question round in the hotel. Through this process, I have become more aware of what I can do when I want to go for it, even though it remains unclear whether the outcome will be positive or negative.

Sometimes you only need one push (or one person that connects with you on LinkedIn) to activate your own potential.

Would you like to know more about the grant application process and/or her research? Please contact Suzan Eris, PhD at NSCR.