‘The View from a Committee Room: An AHRC Panel Member’s Top Tips’
Roberta Mock
-
PRC member since 2006
Member of 4 funding panels (2 x Fellowships; 1 x CDA; 1 x Research Grant)
Chair of 2 funding panels (1 x Research Grant; 1 x Fellowships)
Differences between AHRC schemes and also similar-sounding grants offered
by other funding organisations
The AHRC is not a ‘them’ or a ‘they’.
APPLICANT(S)
-
Do not run before you can walk: need a convincing and appropriate track
record
Relevant expertise and experience across the investigative team – articulate
why each person is necessary and why all should work together
WRITE WITH YOUR POTENTIAL REVIEWERS IN MIND
-
-
Need to find balance between subject specialist and arts & humanities
research generalist – when in doubt, err toward the former though ensure that
the summary and significance of project can be stood by all
Imagine your nightmare critic – pre-empt their criticisms but don’t be
defensive
Choose the best ‘Freetext keywords’
ARTS AND/OR HUMANITIES?
-
Make sure it is clear how this project enhances knowledge within the subject
domains covered by the AHRC
Especially the case when research focuses on design processes or
technological innovation, responding to questions that might be considered
‘sociological’.
PREPARATION/GETTING STARTED
-
Talk it through with others – if you, and the interlocutors you respect, are not
convinced, then do not waste your time
Take your time – I would say it takes at least 2 months to prepare a strong
application, including a solid week (i.e. over 40 hours) to write it.
Use successful applications as guidance – but don’t become too complacent
and avoid using them as ‘models’ – expectations change quickly even within
the same scheme
COHERENCE & PRESENTATION
-
Ensure that all elements of application align – but try not to repeat yourself
1
-
Don’t switch between 1st and 3rd person in same document
Spelling, grammar and capitalization do make a difference
Follow AHRC guidelines for headings in Case for Support
IMPACT
-
Do not overinflate claims
Have a strategy or activity that directly reaches each beneficiary group listed.
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS
-
If there are any human participants, there ARE ethical implications.
IT’S ALL IN THE DETAILS
-
To which conferences do you intend to propose papers? Which element(s) of
project are you likely to discuss at this stage?
To which journals will you be submitting?
Breakdowns of budget and how numbers are derived (Justification for
Resources)
WORK-PLAN
-
Don’t skimp on hours – If it is clearly impossible to complete the project within
the hours requested, make it clear how the rest will be covered.
Ensure time-scale is not too compressed and there is space for revision
VALUE FOR MONEY?
-
Reviewers & panels want to know that the proposal is well-considered and
achievable within resources
Very expensive proposals do tend to be scrutinized much more closely since
the commitment is bigger
Reach (i.e. having a clear strategy to disseminate the research to people who
might be interested in it) and significance tend to be taken into account more
than overall budget
MONITORING PROGRESS
-
Build in reports to management groups
Mentoring?
Line management and regular reviewing processes
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT/INTERNAL PEER REVIEW
-
AHRC Peer Review College Member or Former Panellist
Somebody who has successfully applied for funding (preferably to AHRC)
Somebody with subject/discipline-specific expertise
2
PI RESPONSE/RIGHT TO REPLY
-
A super critical peer review is not the end of the world
Be gracious no matter what
Panel reads everything and usually recognises when a reviewer is ‘out of line’
Respond directly to requests for more info or misunderstandings – don’t
change your proposal but use space to elaborate
Don’t repeat the nice comments that were made – or use one reviewer to
dispute another.
Use a peer reviewing process – have somebody else look at it before sending
response back to AHRC.
INCREASING YOUR CHANCES
-
-
-
In each panel meeting I have attended, there seems to always be consensus
about which proposals are the best – but there is some ‘chance’ involved in
which proposals come through at the same time as yours.
Every excellent proposal I’ve seen in a panel has been funded – though not
every one I thought was excellent as a peer reviewer!
Seems to be more of an issue about the ordering of proposals around the
funding ‘cut off’ point (which the panel does not know as it has to do with how
much the top ones ‘cost’)
If there is an ECR route and you meet the qualifications, use it (or perhaps
there is a Co-I that is an ECR who can become the PI).
Respond to highlight notices – but don’t try to shoehorn your application into a
theme; the case must be clear and compelling
BURNING QUESTIONS?
3