Arts and Humanities
Research Council
How to write a good
AHRC grant application
(Research Grants & Fellowships)
INTRODUCTION
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.
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 AHRC’s regulations. Details of all the requirements and the terms
and conditions for research proposals can be found in the AHRC’s
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.
When the proposal is completed it is initially submitted to the host
organisation’s 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.
THE APPLICATION
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 AHRC’s 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 applicant’s 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
Attachment
Research Grants
Research Fellowships
Research Fellowships
early career
Case for support
X
X
X
Curriculum Vitae
X
X
X
Publication lists
X
X
X
Visual evidence (optional)
X
X
X
Technical Plan (if
applicable)
X
X
X
Justification of resources
X
X
X
Pathways to impact
X
X
X
Work plan
X
X
Head of Department
Statement
X
X
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 CoInvestigators 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 applicant’s 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 email.
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 highquality, 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 project’s
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
Fellowships
Fellowships early
career
Research Grants
Standard
Research Grants
early career
Highlight notice (if
applicable)
x
x
x
x
Research questions
or problems
x
x
x
x
Research context
x
x
x
x
Research methods
x
x
x
x
Leadership
development plans
x
x
Technical Summary
x
x
x
x
Project management
x
x
x
x
Dissemination
x
x
x
x
Statement of
eligibility
For more information,
go to Research Funding
Guide:
x
Section 1.3
Section 1.4
x
Section 1.1
Section 1.2
JE-S
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.
• Dedicated Je-S help desk available between 9am and 5pm, Monday to
Friday, e-mail: jeshelp@rcuk.ac.uk or telephone: 01793 444164.
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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s work to date
•
the applicant’s 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 project’s 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 AHRC’s 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 e-mail 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 email carefully.
•
Applicants may wish to refer to 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 PI’s 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 PI’s 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.
AWARD DECISIONS
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 email
address shown on the applicant’s Je-S record.
•
If an applicant is unsuccessful, they will receive an email 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
Resubmission policy
•
In line with the AHRC’s 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
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 www.rcuk.ac.uk/researchoutcomes and log-in in through award
holders’ Je-S account details.
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.