Preparing a draft proposal and consulting on it, preparing the project costings and getting advice on these, as well as reading the regulations of the grants scheme to learn what is and what is not permissible, are all time-consuming parts of the process of application.
All funding agencies will have their own criteria for deciding on allocation of their resources. It is worth while taking time to familiarise yourself with these and ensuring that your proposal clearly addresses your targeted source of support.
The ESRC is an agency funded by the government and its mission is "to promote and support by any means, high quality, basic, strategic and applied research and related postgraduate training in the social sciences; to advance knowledge and provide trained social scientists which meets the needs of users and beneficiaries, thereby contributing to the economic competitiveness of the UK, the effectiveness of public services and policy, and the quality of life; and, to provide advice on, and disseminate knowledge and promote public understanding of, the social sciences".
Four characteristics of all successful ESRC research grants are constant. They must:
- promise excellent research
- be of value to potential users outside or within the research community
- convince of the ability to deliver research
- demonstrate value for money (not necessarily the same as cheapness)
...and the guidance notes attached to the application form which are designed to help you through the 'filling in' process. This cannot be over-stressed; familiarising yourself with the content of the ESRC Research Funding Guide may seem tedious but will help you to avoid basic mistakes which at best will require clarification with office staff and at worst may prejudice chances of success. Make sure you are using the current versions of the application form and Research Funding Guidelines. If in doubt check with the office staff at the Council. (More information on electronic applications to the ESRC.)
...with peer groups, colleagues and, if you are a relatively new researcher, with senior and more experienced researchers. Experienced collaboration or supervision rarely goes amiss. If you have never sent in a proposal to the ESRC before try to get the advice of someone who has already been successful. Contact the people you intend to nominate as referees and make sure they know what you are doing. It is not uncommon for nominated referees to be unaware of the substance of the work they are asked to comment on, have little knowledge of the applicant or his/her work, or give a very poor grading. Some have even been known to decline to comment.
...which should be considered with care and close reference to the ESRC Research Funding Guide. A maximum of 2 sides of A4 is allowed on the compulsory justification attachment to the application. Be realistic - lavish costings are unlikely to find favour with Panel Members and a proposal which promises the earth at remarkably low expense will be regarded with caution. Applicants should think carefully about the time and resources needed to complete the research successfully within the specified period. Awards will be based on the eligible costings included in proposals and will be subject to standard indexation and cash limited at the time of announcement so it is important to get costings right when applying. A well thought out financial plan helps to create confidence in the proposal generally. Give as detailed a breakdown of costs as possible so that the Panel can properly assess the case for support. Do make sure that what you are asking for is allowed within the regulations. Bear in mind that ESRC is looking for value for money.
The research proposal is the means by which you will be trying to convince the Panel that your proposal is worth funding so think carefully about what information you are going to give and how it is presented. Make sure you think your plan through and cover all stages.
Ask yourself the following questions:
- Have I clearly formulated the problem, have I put it in context of contemporary scientific and theoretical debates, demonstrated the way in which my work will build on existing research and make a contribution to the area? Is there a clear and convincingly argued analytical framework? What will the research do, to whom or to what, and why?
- Have I established appropriate aims and objectives? Are they clear and concise, do they reflect intellectual aims and practical, attainable objectives?
- Have I provided a well-thought out research design in which there is a reasoned explanation of the scale, timing and resources necessary? Am I being realistic about these? Am I using the most relevant approach and the most appropriate methods? How will it relate to and deliver the objectives?
- What will my research design allow me to say in the interpretation of anticipated results?
- Have I given a full and detailed description of the proposed research methods? Is there any innovation in the methodology I am planning to use? Am I developing any new methods or using established methods innovatively?
- If I am using data collection have I considered already existing data resources? Have I contacted the ESRC Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS)? Am I sure that access will be given where necessary, and do I have written confirmation of this? Am I convinced of its quality, validity, reliability and relevance? Have I considered the costs of cataloguing and preparing data for archiving?
- Have I demonstrated a clear and systematic approach to the analysis of data and how this fits into the research design?
- Have I thought about the ethics of what I am planning to do? Are there any sensitive issues or potential problems which need to be addressed? Have I fully consulted on these issues and obtained the approval of an ethical committee where required.
- Have I recognised and planned for the skills and competencies that will be required to bring the work to a satisfactory conclusion?
- Have I anticipated potential difficulties? Have I shown that I recognise these and discussed how they would be handled?
- Have I provided a bibliography? This will be used in the selection of referees and will indicate your familiarity with the theoretical grounding and current state of the art of your subject. Where there is genuinely little or no relevant literature, explain this fully. Panel members and referees will not assume your erudition, they want evidence.
- This proposal will be subject to the critical appraisal of my peers. Am I satisfied that I have fully defended my chosen research design and made it clear why others are not appropriate?
- Have I identified potential users of this research outside of the academic community; have I involved/consulted them in my planning? Have I arranged for their continuing involvement in the research process in an appropriate way?
- Have I considered the possibility of co-funding of the research, with ESRC being asked to provide only a proportion of the project funding?
- Have I provided a clear dissemination strategy for the research demonstrating how the research outcomes will be communicated to all interested parties including potential users of the research outside of the academic community?
Convey to the Panel your genuine interest, understanding and enthusiasm for the work. Keep the following questions in mind as you plan:
- what is the story you are telling?
- who is the audience?
- why does it matter?
- why now?
- why you?
On proposals under £1 million, 6 sides of A4 for the case for support are allowed (12 sides of A4 for proposals over £1 million). It is also important to make sure that you devote enough space in the proposal to describing the research you intend to conduct and the research design and methods - the Panels find it very frustrating when applicants devote pages to explaining why their proposed research is exciting but then provide only a short and inadequate explanation of how they propose to explore this in practice.
Write in plain English. Your proposal is likely to be seen by many people, including some who will not be familiar with your particular specialisation. Detail and specification may necessitate the use of disciplinary or technical terminology and this will be clear to peer reviewers, but the ideas you wish to convey and your reasons for doing so should be apparent to a wide audience. By the same token, do take the trouble to check spelling, grammar and punctuation. These are all part of the quality of presentation and presentation matters!
Our mission places emphasis on ensuring that researchers engage as fully as possible with the users of research outcomes. These may be other academics, government departments, public bodies, businesses, voluntary organisations or other interested parties. Try to consult with and involve people who could make a valuable contribution to the research and who could provide support and interest. In line with the common position on Excellence with Impact adopted by RCUK, the ESRC expects that the researchers it funds will have considered the potential scientific, societal and economic impacts of their research. Applicants should actively consider how these can be maximised and developed through the Case for Support. The ESRC Impact Toolkit includes information on developing an impact strategy, promoting knowledge exchange, public engagement and communicating effectively with your key stakeholders. This will form part of the peer review and assessment process. Opportunities for making an impact may arise, and should be taken, at any stage during or after the life-course of the research. It is important that researchers have in place a robust strategy for maximising the likelihood of such opportunities arising and their own capacity for taking advantage of these.
Once you have completed the application form make sure that all the required information is provided. Some of the most common omissions and problem areas are:
- an unrealistic start date
- missing details of previous/current proposals with reports on current projects or end-of-award reports where required. We will not process new proposals if an End of Award Report is overdue
- a proposal not limited to 6 sides of A4 (or 12 sides in the case of applications over £1 million)
- no covering letter in the case of resubmissions
For the Research Grants scheme: Proposals receiving an average score of at least 4.5 (out of 6) from external academic reviewers are forwarded to the Panel Members (Introducers) for a funding recommendation. Proposals receiving a lower average score are rejected as not meeting the requisite scientific standard. In this case, the referee comments may offer some helpful guidance but you really need to think carefully about the quality and value of the work you have proposed.
At the full Panel meetings a proportion of proposals will be recommended for funding, or unsuccessful due to lack of funds, or in some cases due to not meeting the requisite scientific standard. This is stiff competition by anyone's standards! A ranked list of recommendations is then considered by the Grants Delivery Group for a final funding decision.
Anonymous comments will be sent with your decision letter, and the feedback may be helpful if you submit a new proposal in the future.
We have amended our resubmissions policy to accept only invited resubmissions. We no longer allow the resubmission of any previously unsuccessful proposals, unless applicants have been specifically invited to do so.
Congratulations, and we hope your project goes well. However, if difficulties arise such as delays in recruitment, staff illness, replacements, or changes to the work plan then please let us know immediately. Under the Research Funding Guide rules you will not need to notify us of virements of funds between headings and no supplementation will be allowed.
We hope you have found these notes useful and wish you success with your proposal.
