This paper examines the temporalities of applying competitive research funding. The temporal conditions of academic work constitute one of the central concerns in recent research on productivity, efficiency and competition, which increasingly shape the rhythms of academic work (Vostal 2015; Venäläinen 2023; Poutanen 2025). Much of this research draws on broader theoretical accounts of social acceleration. Rosa (2013) describes acceleration as a set of interrelated temporal dynamics encompassing technological speed-up, rapid social change, and an accelerated pace of life characterised by growing time pressure, dynamics he understands as characteristic of late modern societies.

The rhythms of academic life are often portrayed as intensifying cycles of pressure that erode the scope for self-determined scholarly engagement and generate pervasive feelings of anxiety and exhaustion (Loveday 2018). This emphasis is also reflected in studies of academic temporality, which have focused on the costs of acceleration (Müller 2014; Vostal 2016; Ylijoki 2016; Kezar et al. 2019) and studies of academic temporality have largely emphasised the costs of acceleration, framing academic work primarily as a source of strain and alienation (Ylijoki 2016; Kezar et al. 2019). While such accounts provide important insights into the structural pressures shaping universities today, they also represent a relatively narrow picture.

In the context of research funding, this narrowness is particularly visible in how application processes have predominantly been approached through outcomes of success and failure, with attention directed to frustration produced by low success rates (Borgstrom et al. 2023). We shift attention instead to the lived process of writing research proposals, considering funding applications as processes that unfold over time and may also give rise to resonance. To capture this dimension, we draw on the notion of affective rhythms (Gibbs 2007; Venäläinen 2023), understood as temporally organised and collectively experienced patterns of feeling that shape how researchers engage with applying for research funding and make sense of it as part of academic work. In addition, we draw on Hartmut Rosa’s concept of resonance to conceptualise how temporal conditions shape meaningful engagement with funding practices. The core interest of this paper lies in the observation that speed is not problematic per se, but becomes detrimental when it results in alienation (Lijster, Celikate & Rosa 2019; see also López-González 2024). From this perspective, experiences of urgency or fast-paced work are not necessarily problematic in themselves; rather, alienation may emerge as a by-product of acceleration.

Rosa describes resonance as a responsive relation to the world characterised by a sense of meaningful engagement, whereas alienation denotes situations where such responsiveness is absent (Rosa 2019). Attending to moments where the funding application process lacks responsiveness, we introduce the notion of shadow rhythms to capture less gratifying affective dynamics in funding applications. By shadow rhythms we refer to affective dynamics that resonate with alienation, capturing situations where the temporal flow of applying does not generate meaningfulness and anticipated pauses or relief fail to occur. Attending to these shadow rhythms allows us to highlight the ambivalence of application work, showing how the same practices may generate both resonance and detachment.

While the analysis is attentive to affective expressions, affect is not treated as a primary object of analysis. Rather, affective intensity is approached as a relational dimension through which temporal structures become experientially meaningful. Feelings of determination or renewed energy are considered insofar as they illuminate how researchers relate to the rhythms, pressures, and moments of intensity involved in application work. In this sense, affect functions as an entry point into examining temporal experience and resonance, including the points at which engagement is sustained and those where the risk of alienation becomes perceptible.

We refer to our approach as analytical collaborative autoethnography (Anderson 2006), which positions researchers as engaged members of the academic community and treats their experiences as a resource for analysis. While the degree of analyticity may vary, the approach emphasises attentiveness to others and dialogue throughout the research process and in writing (Doloriert & Sambrook 2009; Tienari & Kiriakos 2020). The data are produced by three of the authors, who obtained their doctoral degrees 6–12 years ago and are therefore at postdoctoral and senior researcher stages of their academic careers. Two other authors are doctoral researchers who did not participate in the production of the data but contributed to its reflection in research group meetings, particularly in relation to earlier literature. The writing process was initiated by two of us in October 2024, and a third researcher joined in early 2025. We limited our writing to research proposals related to competitive research funding. In the Finnish context, this includes calls by the Research Council of Finland as well as major grant schemes offered by Finnish foundations. Two of us also have prior experience of successful applications for competitive research funding, which informed our reflections. The writing process has been organised over time: we have written independently, used each other’s texts as inspiration for further development, and brought our writings to research group meetings for collective reflection. Material generated through these reflections forms part of the study’s empirical data. We have also drawn on literature on academic work as a stimulus and point of reference for our writing. Methodologically, the analysis is guided by the idea of otherwising (Calvert 2024), a commitment to looking otherwise and attending to aspects of academic work that are often taken for granted. In the context of writing research proposals, this means shifting attention from evaluative endpoints to the lived experiences of preparing, writing, and submitting proposals. This perspective allows us to highlight moments of resonance (Rosa 2019), in which researchers experience a sense of meaningfulness. While the analysis is attentive to affective expressions in the autoethnographic accounts, affect is not treated as a primary object of analysis. Rather, affective intensity is approached as a relational dimension through which temporal structures become experientially meaningful, illuminating both sustained engagement and points where detachment becomes perceptible.

Focusing on the temporal organisation of writing funding proposals, our preliminary analysis identifies four interrelated themes that illuminate how application rhythms generate moments of resonance while also revealing conditions under which these moments give way to strain. First, intensified engagement refers to how the concentrated periods reserved for writing research plans can create conditions for sustained engagement with one’s own research ideas. By contrast, shadow rhythms refer to situations in which intensified academic time is experienced as fragmented, as competing demands intrude upon the writing process and prevent the emergence of resonance. Second, the theme of anticipated pause highlights how the intensified periods are shaped by the anticipation of release and recovery following submission. Third, the temporal application self refers to a temporally bounded sense of heightened competence and productivity that emerges during intensified periods of writing research plans. Fourth, communality across application cycles highlights how recurring practices and shared engagements generate continuity and belonging beyond individual funding calls. By shifting attention from evaluative outcomes to the lived process of proposal writing, the paper extends existing literature on academic temporality by showing how accelerated and deadline-driven work may temporarily intensify researchers’ sense of focus and meaning. The findings also suggest that rhythms surrounding funding application work may simultaneously sustain experiences of resonance while rendering them fragile and difficult to maintain. Shadow rhythms further reveal how easily rhythms associated with resonance may shift towards alienation. The problem, then, is not acceleration itself, but whether accelerated academic rhythms continue to sustain meaningful and responsive relations to academic work, others, and oneself. In this sense, the analysis resonates with earlier discussions on contradictory academic temporalities, acceleration, and “academic arrhythmia” (e.g. Bristow et al., 2019; Felt, 2025).

Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic Autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373-395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241605280449 Borgstrom, E., Driessen, A., Krawczyk, M., Kirby, E., MacArtney, J., & Almack, K. (2023). Grieving academic grant rejections: Examining funding failure and experiences of loss. The Sociological Review, 72(5), 998-1017. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261231207196 Bristow, A., Robinson, S. & Ratle, O. (2019). Academic Arrhythmia: Disruption, Dissonance, and Conflict in the Early-Career Rhythms of CMS Academics. Academy of Management Learning & Education 18 (2). Calvert, Jane (2023). A Place for Science and Technology Studies: Observation, Intervention, and Collaboration, The MIT Press, 10.7551/mitpress/14594.001.0001 Doloriert, C., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Ethical confessions of the “I” of autoethnography: A student’s dilemma. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 4(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465640910951435 Felt, U. (2025) Contesting the Chronopolitics of Research. Palgrave Macmillan Gibbs, A. (2007). Writing as Method: Attunement, Resonance, and Rhythm. In: B.T. Knudsen & C. Stage, (eds.) Affective Methodologies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137483195_11 Kezar, A., DePaola, T- & Scott Daniel T. (2019) The Gig Academy: Mapping Labor in the Neoliberal University. John Hopkins University Press. López-González, J. L. (2024). The resonance approach for non-alienated relationships: beyond slowness in higher education. Ethics and Education, 19(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2023.2297141 Loveday, V. (2018). The neurotic academic: anxiety, casualisation, and governance in the neoliberalising university, Journal of Cultural Economy, 11(2), 154-166, 10.1080/17530350.2018.1426032 Müller R. (2014). Racing for What? Anticipation and Acceleration in the Work and Career Practices of Academic Life Science Postdocs. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 15(3), Poutanen, M. Accelerated Academia: Time Regimes of a University Merger. Minerva (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-025-09571-5 Rosa, H. (2003). Social Acceleration: Ethical and Political Consequences of a Desynchronized High-Speed Society Constellations, 10(1), 3–33. Rosa, H. (2013). Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity. New York: Columbia University Press. Rosa, H. (2019). Resonance: A Sociology of Our Relationship to the World. Cambridge: Polity. Tienari, J. & Kiriakos, C. (2020). Autoetnografia. In: A. Puusa ja P. Juuti (eds.) Laadullisen tutkimuksen näkökulmat ja menetelmät. Gaudeamus, 282–295. Venäläinen J. (2023). Getting texts done: affective rhythms of reading in quantified academia. In: D Nehring & K. Brunila (eds). Affective Capitalism in Academia: Revealing Public Secrets. Bristol University Press, 196–215. Vostal (2016). Accelerating Academia, Springer. Ylijoki, O.-H. (2016). Projectification and conflicting temporalities in academic knowledge production. Teorie vědy / Theory of Science, 38(1), 7–26.