Presentation on theme: "How to write a good AHRC grant application (Research Grants & Fellowships) Arts and Humanities Research Council."— Presentation transcript:
How to write a good AHRC grant application (Research Grants & Fellowships) Arts and Humanities Research Council
The content and the quality of the grant application submitted to the AHRC determines whether or not the applicant is successful in receiving the funding for which they have applied. To make sure that an application has the best possible chance of being funded, it is important that applicants, research officers and other staff, who assist them in preparing and submitting an application, have a thorough understanding of the application process and of what makes a good application.
The following slides focus on Research Grants and Fellowships with the notes providing informal guidance for applicants and research officers. The AHRC advice applicants to read the AHRC Funding Guide and all relevant scheme guidance. AHRC Funding Guide scheme guidance Other schemes may vary at any stage so please check the relevant guidance.
Deadlines: Research Grants (RGs) and Fellowship (Fels) schemes operate without formal deadlines and applicants can submit proposals at any time of the year. Assessment Process: Unless otherwise stated, the assessment process for a proposal will take approximately 30 weeks. The start date entered on the proposal should be no earlier than 9 months after submission and should be no later than 18 months after submission. On occasions, where there is a delay in obtaining the peer reviews for a proposal, the assessment process may take longer. In such circumstances the AHRC will contact applicants regarding any delay.
Terms and conditions: Anyone involved in the preparation and submission of a proposal should familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions for fEC grants and the AHRCs regulations. Details of all the requirements and the terms and conditions for research proposals can be found in the AHRCs Research Funding Guide.AHRCs Research Funding Guide Submission: Applicants should complete the proposal form on the Joint Electronic Submission System (Je-S). AHRC uses the Standard Grant Proposal forms on Je-S.on Je-S When the proposal is completed it is initially submitted to the host organisations administration to undertake quality control including checking the completeness, validity and accuracy of the costs sought. If the proposal is being submitted against a Call for Proposals then sufficient time should be allowed for the organisation to process the proposal and submit it to the Council before the specified time and closing date.
To consider - 1 Check the Research Funding Guide and scheme guidance to ensure: the proposal will be eligible the proposal fits the scheme you know what the assessment criteria are (read the peer review section so that you know what reviewers are being asked to consider) funder - which funder and which scheme? time – needed: (1) to prepare, to liaise with collaborators and to complete the application including any internal institutional approval processes and submission to Council, (2) to ensure proposed start dates factor in internal approval processes and the recruitment of PDRAs or Project Students. Applicants should carefully consider the grant processing times in relation to their start date to ensure that they will have enough time to recruit staff and students to the grant. AHRC only allows slippage to start dates in exceptional circumstances.
To consider – 2 feedback - discuss your proposal with colleagues, peers and the Research Office and get their feedback. If applicable, get partners on board and allow time for them to contribute to the proposal development costings – consult the Research Office on realistic costings content – research question, methodology and context impact and dissemination – read the guidance, consider the options and consult presentation – making best use of space in the form. Read the Je-S Help Text to check exactly what is needed in each scheme page limits – proposals exceeding page limits will be returned check and double check – that all information is included and is accurate.
Subject area and keywords For all schemes applicants are asked to classify a proposal in terms of subject area and keywords. This information will be used to assist in selecting Peer Review College reviewers and, for Research Grants proposals, determine the panel to which an application will be submitted. In framing a proposal, an applicant should ensure that it comprehensible to a wide academic audience, as panellists may not have specific expertise in the particular subject area of the proposal Specialist advice is made available to the peer review panel via the reviews provided by Peer Review College members The AHRC is committed to the principle that the work it funds should be disseminated to as wide an audience as possible, both within the UK and internationally. The Summary section on the proposal form asks applicants to describe the proposed research in simple terms in a way that could be publicised to a general audience and may be published on the AHRCs website if the application is successful.
Academic beneficiaries The Academic Beneficiaries section asks applicants to summarise how their research will benefit other researchers in the field and – where relevant – academic beneficiaries in other disciplines. Academic communication and dissemination plans should be elaborated further in the Case for Support.
Impact summary The Impact Summary asks applicants to address two questions: –who will benefit from the research? –how will they benefit from the research? Applicants are asked to consider users and beneficiaries of the research who are outside the academic research community (they can be individuals, specific organisations or groups/sectors). Please note that the Impact Summary may be published to demonstrate potential impact of Research Council funded research and so should not include any confidential information. Research Officers are advised also to refer to Section 5: Impact in the Resource Pack.
Pathways to impact - 1 The Pathways to Impact (Impact Plan) is primarily for detailing the activities which will help develop potential economic and societal impacts. It should continue on from the two questions, addressed within the Impact Summary, by addressing the following question: What will be done to ensure that potential beneficiaries have the opportunity to engage with this research? The Pathways to Impact attachment is the applicants opportunity to describe in more detail how the potential impacts of the research beyond academia, as outlined in the Impact Summary, will be realised: how will the proposed research be managed to engage any users and beneficiaries that have been identified, or are identified, as the research progresses? How will the applicant tailor and target their impact activities to ensure that these are relevant to the specific user and beneficiary groups? How will the applicant tailor and target their impact activities to ensure they are appropriate for supporting the potential research impacts outlined? Innovative and creative approaches are strongly encouraged.
Pathways to impact - 2 Applicants should consider (and address if appropriate) methods for communications and engagement, collaboration and exploitation. They should also detail who will be undertaking any impact activities and include any resource implications in the financial summary and in the separate Justification of Resources attachment. The attachment should be: up to 2 sides of A4 in Arial font no smaller than size 11.
Attachments AttachmentResearch GrantsResearch FellowshipsResearch Fellowships early career Case for supportXXX Curriculum VitaeXXX Publication listsXXX Visual evidence (optional)XXX Technical Plan (if applicable) XXX Justification of resourcesXXX Pathways to impactXXX Work plan XX Head of Department Statement XX Mentor Statement X
Curriculum Vitae summary curriculum vitae should be attached as separate documents for each Principal Investigator and any Co-Investigators, named postdoctoral researchers or named project students. each CV: no more than two sides of A4 paper in an Arial font no smaller than size 11 CVs should include basic information about education, employment history, and academic responsibilities. Applicants should bear in mind that the CV will help peer reviewers to assess whether they are well placed to undertake the proposal project.
Publication Lists summary lists of publications/research outputs should be attached as separate documents for each Principal Investigator and any Co- Investigators or named postdoctoral researchers. these should cover major publications/outputs in the last five years no more than one side of A4 paper in an Arial font no smaller than size 11 brief articles, conference papers, etc. should not be included. applicants should asterisk those publications/research outputs of particular relevance to their current research proposal.
Visual evidence Applications may include no more than two sides of A4 non-textual, visual evidence in support of the proposal, to illustrate the proposed aims and objectives and/or research methods. It is not permitted to include this material to supplement or replace the applicants CV or publications list or to illustrate previous work in any way nor should it be used to circumvent the page limit for the case for support. Web links are not checked and therefore should not be included.
Technical Plan - 1 Please read the Research Funding Guide for full guidance on the Technical Plan. Applicants should consider carefully its definitions within the context of their research proposal. A Technical Plan should be provided for all applications where digital outputs or digital technologies are an essential part to the planned research outcomes. A digital output or digital technology is defined as an activity which involves the creation, gathering, collecting and/or processing of digital information. In this context, digital technologies do not include conventional software such as word processing packages and ICT activities such as . You do not need to complete a Technical Plan if the only proposed digital output or technology consists of web-pages containing information about the project (as opposed to data produced by the project).
Technical Plan - 2 The purpose is to demonstrate to the AHRC that technical provisions within a research proposal have been adequately addressed in terms of: –delivering the planned digital output or the digital technology from a practical and methodological perspective; –doing so in a way which satisfies the AHRC's requirements for preservation and sustainability. The AHRC has a responsibility to ensure that the research which it funds is achievable and high- quality, and that the outputs of the research will wherever appropriate be accessible to the community over the longer term. The level of detail provided should be proportionate to the envisaged value and importance of the proposed digital output or technology and to the cost of developing it.
Technical reviewers Technical reviewers are selected from the Peer Review College to provide grades and comments on the technical aspects of a proposal submitted in the Technical Plan and will be asked to provide an assessment covering the following: project management data development methods infrastructural support data preservation and sustainability access copyright and intellectual property rights (IPR) They will provide an overall assessment (grade and overall conclusions on the proposal, including strengths and weaknesses). The AHRC also asks technical reviewers to provide a brief summary of the overall technical feasibility and merit of the proposal as well as any reservations and/or recommendations which are relevant.
Justification for resources Peer reviewers are asked to consider Value for Money, so please consider this when justifying your resources. Applicants should: explain why the indicated resources are needed, taking account of the nature and complexity of the research proposed. It is not sufficient merely to list what is required have regard for the breakdown of resources into the summary fund headings Directly Incurred, Directly Allocated and (where appropriate) Exceptions in some cases, such as investigator time, use of internal facilities and shared staff costs (all likely to be Directly Allocated costs), the basis of the costing need not be justified, but the need for the resources does need justification try to be explicit about the need for the level of investigator time sought, bearing in mind the complexity of the research, the need to manage the project and supervise staff and any wider considerations such as collaboration, research communication or facilities usage. There is no need to justify estates and indirects. Any proposals requesting items that would ordinarily be found in a department, for example non-specialist computers, should include justification both for why they are required for the project and why they cannot be provided from the Research Organisation's own resources (including funding from indirect costs from grants).
Case for Support - 1 A proposal must be accompanied by a Case for Support attachment. It is extremely important that this includes the information described in the Research Funding Guide. The Case for Support headings have been developed based on feedback from peer reviewers and applicants should use these headings when writing their Case for Support. Proposals containing attachments exceeding the stated limits, or not adhering to the specified format, will not be considered. If an applicant choose to include footnotes or a bibliography (applicants are not required to do so) these must be included within the page limit. The Case for Support should be in Arial font no smaller than size 11. Scheme-specific guidance on what should be included in the Case for Support is contained in Section One of the Funding Guide.
Case for Support - 2 Page limits for each scheme are: grants (standard and early career route): 7 pages fellowships (standard and early career route): 7 pages The statement of eligibility for the early career route does not count as part of the page limit and should be written on 1 separate page. While applicants should aim to make the Case for Support as concise, specific and clear as possible, the work to be undertaken should nonetheless be fully explained, as failure to provide adequate detail on any aspects may seriously prejudice the application. All Cases for Support need to include a heading of Technical Summary.
Case for Support - 3 All Cases for Support need to include a heading of Technical Summary. If digital outputs or digital technologies are essential to the planned research outcomes of your proposal, then you should:- a) use this section to provide a brief description of the projects proposed digital outputs and/or digital technologies. AND b) complete a Technical Plan and add this as an attachment to your proposal If your application does involve digital outputs or digital technologies, but you believe that the inclusion of a Technical Plan is not warranted, you should use this section to explain and justify this, for instance on the grounds that the digital output or technologies are not essential to the planned research outcomes.
Case for Support - 4 Applicants should describe their proposed project/programme of research using the required headings for their scheme (see table below). Required case for support headings FellowshipsFellowships early career Research Grants Standard Research Grants early career Highlight notice (if applicable) xxxx Research questions or problems xxxx Research contextxxxx Research methodsxxxx Leadership development plans xx Technical Summaryxxxx Project managementxxxx Dissemination xxxx Statement of eligibility x x For more information, go to Research Funding Guide: Section 1.3Section 1.4Section 1.1Section 1.2
Completing the proposal All proposals must be completed and submitted via Je-S. To submit proposals using Je-S, both individual applicants and the submitting Research Organisation (the one that will hold the award) must be registered on the system. Applicants should ensure that their correct contact details are in their Je-S record, as the AHRC uses this to notify applicants of the outcome of their applications. Detailed Helptext within the Je-S system provides information on how to complete each section of the proposal form.Helptext within the Je-S system Dedicated Je-S help desk available between 9am and 5pm, Monday to Friday, or telephone:
Creating a proposal - 1 to prepare a proposal form in Je-S, the applicant should log into their account and choose New Document, then select AHRC as the Council, choose their Document Type and Scheme to which they are applying and Create Document. Je-S will then create a proposal form, displaying section headings appropriate to the Scheme the applicant has chosen. using the Help link at the top of each page will provide guidance relevant to that section of the Je-S form. once complete, applicants should upload a Case for Support and other supporting information as attachments, and submit their proposal.
Creating a proposal - 2 Je-S will forward the applicants proposal to their Research Organisation, who in turn will submit the proposal to AHRC. Ensure sufficient time is allowed prior to AHRC deadlines for the Research Organisation to be able to do this (note that some Research Organisations will have their own internal deadlines). The published scheme deadline is for submission of the completed application to the AHRC by the Research Organisation. Late proposals will not be accepted. Proposals containing attachments exceeding the stated limits, or not adhering to the specified format, will not be considered.
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND PEER REVIEW Unless otherwise stated in the scheme specific guidance, the following criteria will be taken into account by the peer reviewers in assessing a proposal.
The AHRC is fundamentally committed to competitive bidding and assessment by process of peer review, and for this reason it brings its peer reviewers together as part of its Peer Review College. College members are a key part of the system, which is designed to ensure that peer review is conducted with the utmost attention to fairness and transparency, and to the requirements of academic rigour. College members have a duty of confidence and, on joining the College, agree to treat all applications made to the AHRC confidentially.
Quality and importance the extent to which the proposal meets the specific aims of the scheme to which the applicant is applying the significance and importance of the project, and of the contribution it will make, if successful, to enhancing or developing creativity, insights, knowledge or understanding of the area to be studied in a national or international context the extent to which the research questions, issues or problems that will be addressed in the course of the research are defined and their importance and appropriateness specified the appropriateness of the research context and specification of why it is important that these particular questions, issues or problems are addressed. The extent to which other current research conducted in this area has been considered, and the range of audiences that might be targeted the appropriateness, effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed research methods and/or approach.
People the quality and importance of the applicants work to date the applicants ability to monitor the project and bring it to completion as demonstrated in the application the appropriateness of the level and balance (in terms of time and seniority) of the proposed staffing on the project, and the extent to which opportunities will be made available for less experienced researchers whether the other named participants have the appropriate experience and expertise to deliver the project.
Management of the project whether the lines of responsibility and accountability are clearly articulated. whether a realistic timetable, incorporating milestones, is presented which will achieve the projects aims and objectives within the proposed timescale the extent to which the applicant has understood the amount of work to be involved, allocated sufficient time and resources to achieving each aspect.
Value for money the extent to which the likely outcome of the research will represent value for money, and in particular the relationship between the funds that are sought and the significance and quality of the projected outcomes of the research whether the resources requested are reasonable in the context of the proposed research.
Outputs, dissemination and impact - 1 the appropriateness and effectiveness of the proposed dissemination methods the extent to which the research process is documented or recorded in a way to enable dissemination of research outcomes to the widest possible audience the likelihood that the outputs and outcomes of the project will be highly valued and widely exploited, both in the research community and in wider contexts where they can make a difference whether the plans to increase impact are appropriate and justified, given the nature of the proposed research whether sufficient attention has been given to who the beneficiaries of the research might be and appropriate ways to engage with them throughout the project.
Outputs, dissemination and impact - 2 Applicants are encouraged to disseminate their research and its outcomes to as wide an audience as possible, and where appropriate to engage in communication, dissemination and exploitation activities throughout the period of the project. Applicants should therefore specify the audiences to whom their research could be of interest, and how they propose to engage with those audiences about their research.
The Peer Review College All proposals will be considered where possible, by a minimum of three members of the AHRCs Peer Review College. A complete list of Peer Review College members is available on the AHRC website. The Peer Review College members will provide the AHRC with comments and graded reviews. The AHRC reserves the right to seek reviews from specialists who are not members of the Peer Review College if suitable College members are not available, or where such peer review input is required as part of agreements with other funding bodies. Reviews may be sought from specialists within the UK or abroad. All peer reviews are subject to a quality check. Reviews deemed by the AHRC to be of insufficient quality will either be sent back to the reviewer for revision, or rejected from the assessment process.
Peer Reviewer grading scale The grading scale used by peer reviewers can be found in the Research Funding Guide, section 5.8. Grades are from 6 (outstanding) to 1 (unsatisfactory). Sifting of proposals Proposals will be sifted before going to moderating panel based on the following principles: The AHRC will reject a proposal upon submission where the proposal does not meet the published eligibility criteria; either relating to documentation requirements or where it does not meet the aims or criteria of the scheme to which it has been submitted. (See also slides on Sifting Process) The AHRC will sift proposals against quality criteria, solely on the basis of information supplied by an AHRC peer review process.
The sifting process - 1 The sifting process occurs in two stages: Sift stage 1: AHRC officers will check that: All applicants and named staff are eligible under the scheme requirements The proposal meets the aims and criteria of the scheme to which it has been submitted. All application documents are eligible under the scheme requirements. Proposals which do not meet these criteria will be rejected and returned to the applicant with feedback on why it could not proceed.
The sifting process - 2 Sift stage 2: A sifting decision is made based on the overall confidence levels and grades given by the peer review process. A proposal is rejected if it receives two or more reviews that give the proposal an unfundable grade. A grade is considered unfundable where it is described as either Not Recommended for Funding or Not Suitable for Funding (grades 1, 2 or 3). Applicants of rejected proposals will receive the reviewers comments for information.
Technical review Where the proposal requires completion of the Technical Plan attachment (see the Research Funding Guide, Section Four: Application Guidance) then the proposal will be forwarded to a Technical Reviewer from the Peer Review College to assess the technical feasibility of the proposal. This technical review will be included in the PI Response process. Technical Reviews will also be forwarded to the peer review panels, or other decision making body as appropriate, to assist them in making their grading decisions. Please note that Technical Reviews will not be taken into account when assessing eligibility, or during the sifting of proposals.
Principal Investigator response - 1 Applications which receive two or more grades of 4, 5 or 6 will proceed to the next stage of PI –response. The applicant will be given the right of reply to the reviews received. The PI response allows applicants to correct any factual errors or conceptual misunderstandings, or to respond to any queries highlighted in the comments from the peer reviewers. It is not intended to be an opportunity to change or re-constitute a proposal in the light of the reviewers' comments. Applicants are not obliged to submit a response, but it is recommended that they do so as responses are forwarded to the peer review panel(s), and are taken into account in the grading and prioritisation of proposals.
Principal Investigator response - 2 The AHRC is not able to provide applicants with exact dates of when they will be contacted for the PI response. Once the reviews have been obtained, applicants will be sent an which details the page limit and deadline that apply to their PI response. These vary according to the scheme and the number of reviews, which have been received, so it is vital to read the carefully. Applicants may wish to refer to the guidance note on PI Response.the guidance note on PI Response If a PI response is not received within the period stated, then an application will proceed to panel without it.
Moderation panels Moderation panels assess Research Grant and Fellowships proposals. Members do not re-assess proposals but moderate the reviews which have been received, along with the PI Response to those reviews, and use this as the basis for ranking. In order to do this, members need to use academic judgment based on the reviews and PI Response. Based on the recommendations of the panel, the AHRC makes the final funding decision.
Peer review panels Non-standing Peer Review Panels are convened on an ad hoc basis from the Peer Review College membership. In selecting panel members the AHRC aims to achieve a balance in terms of gender, ethnicity, institution and regional distribution, and to achieve a range of expertise which broadly reflects that of the spread of applicantions. The proposal, peer reviews, technical review (where applicable) and the PIs response to these reviews will be considered individually by members of the peer review panel and then discussed at the panel meeting. The peer review panel will determine a final grade for each application and will rank proposals in order of priority for funding. The panel will consider only the expert peer reviews, technical review (where applicable) and the PIs response to these reviews to reach its decisions. Final funding decisions will rest with the AHRC. Peer review panel members are not permitted to discuss with applicants the content of any proposals they have reviewed, either during or after the assessment process.
Notification of the outcome The AHRC is not able to notify applicants of the outcome of their proposal by telephone. All outcome notifications are sent electronically to the address shown on the applicants Je-S record. If an applicant is unsuccessful, they will receive an advising that they have not been offered an award, and indicating the final outcome their proposal received. The AHRC is unable to provide information on why their proposal was unsuccessful. Applicants are advised that under no circumstances should they contact peer review panel members to discuss individual proposals, meeting details or outcomes.
Resubmission policy In line with the AHRCs approach to demand management, unsuccessful applicants are not permitted to resubmit the same, or substantively similar, proposal to the same scheme. In very particular circumstances the AHRC may, exceptionally, decide to invite an applicant to resubmit the proposal. This will happen only where the panel identifies an application of exceptional potential and can identify specific changes to the application that could significantly enhance its competitiveness. Invited resubmissions will be assessed in the usual way in competition with all other proposals.
Monitoring The AHRC no longer requires award holders to complete a Final Report at the end of their award. Award holders are required to submit outputs, outcomes and impacts linked to their grants through the Research Outcomes System (ROS). Information can be added to ROS at any point once the grant has been made and beyond its conclusion. This allows for a deeper and longer-term record of the results of AHRC funding. ROS is available at and log-in in through award holders Je-S account details.www.rcuk.ac.uk/researchoutcomes More details on ROS will be sent to award holders once their grant is in place. There will also be annual reminders for award holders to update the system with new information.