Online questionnaire: data and discussion

Online questionnaire respondents

This section provides de-identified information on respondents and their institutions.

Forty-seven higher education institutions in Australia can access OLT grant funding. Of these, 40 are universities. The remainder are a mix of institutes and colleges.

Forty-one staff from 35 Australian institutions completed the Project's online questionnaire. Many were Institutional Contact Officers (ICOs). This was unsurprising given their key liaison role and, for many, a focused and deep engagement with administrative, management and application development work in relation to their institution’s engagement with OLT’s awards, grants, fellowship and network programs. The ICOs who responded were variously academic and professional staff. The respondents who were not ICOs were nevertheless closely involved in their institution’s OLT grant activities.

The institutions have been de-identified but are categorised on the basis of the full time equivalent (FTE) number of academic staff they each employ according to the Australian Government’s My University website (no longer available) which published staff demographics for each institution. In grouping institutions from ‘smaller’ to ‘bigger’, the project team was interested to see if relative ‘economies of scale’–crudely identified by numbers of FTE academic staff–had any bearing on the breadth, depth and nature of the processes, resources and activities that supported the development of OLT learning and teaching grant applications. Would bigger institutions ‘have and do more’? By the same token, would smaller institutions ‘have and do less (and/or do more with less)?’ or would the outcome be less predictable than this? The respondent institutions were categorised and coded in the following manner:

• Nine institutions with fewer than FTE 500 academic staff. (Categorised as A-size institutions and, where appropriate, coded as A1, A2, A3, etc.)
• Eight institutions with at least FTE 500 and up to FTE 1,000 academic staff. (B-size; B1, B2, B3, etc.)
• Seven institutions with more than FTE 1,000 but less than FTE 1,500 academic staff. (C-size; C1, C2, C3 etc.)
• Eleven institutions with FTE 1,500 or more academic staff. (D-size; D1, D2, D3, etc.)

Note that the coding designation for any discrete category listed above does not necessarily signify that institutions are listed in order of increasing numbers of FTE academic staff. For example, institution B8 may have less FTE academic staff than institution B7. All C and D size institutions, however, will have more FTE academic staff than B (and A) size institutions.

This is an information-rich account of institutions' approaches to supporting the development of OLT grant applications. Data are tabulated when they lend themselves to being presented as such. Open text answers are presented as de-identified quotes and grouped by size of institution, A-size, B-size, C-size and D-size. This level of detail is useful for benchmarking purposes.

Category 1 research funding

In 2013, OLT learning and teaching grants (and fellowships) were accorded Category 1 research funding status. Category 1 grants return a higher percentage to reporting institutions as part of the Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC) return and block grant funding process. For some time, universities have  typically had specialised areas that support the development and management of Category 1 research grants, for example, Australian Research Council (ARC) and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) grants. Since OLT learning and teaching grants have been classified as Category 1, anecdotal evidence suggests that in some institutions there has been a closer alignment/re-alignment between OLT grants and those areas that have traditionally had oversight of Category 1 grants. The online questionnaire asked respondents to describe the situation at their institutions and comment on any related affordances and/or challenges.

Twelve discrete themes were identified from the questionnaire data. For the purposes of reporting these themes, ‘Research Services’ (RS) is used as a generic term instead of the actual names of departments and units which have traditionally had oversight of Category 1 grants. Similarly, ‘Learning and Teaching Unit’ (LTU) is used to signify (usually) central units or departments which have expertise in tertiary pedagogies and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). 

1. Small institution: The smallest institutions do not have RS departments.
2. Research Services not yet involved: RS are not yet involved in any capacity.
3. Research Services becoming involved: Respondents from five institutions commented that processes were currently being built to involve RS. One reported that, 'It has occurred, but only partially as it’s in its initial stages'.
4. Possible confusion with ‘two systems': A respondent from a C-size institution said that because OLT grants were traditionally 'managed differently to all other category one research, this causes confusion within faculty research and administration teams'. In this case, the senior line manager of the LTU was working with RS 'to build back-end structures'. A respondent from a D-size institution said, 'The challenge is how to work together so it is not confusing to the applicants or ourselves - we have had applicants for OLT grants contact the other area and that area not send them onto us etc. We are working on how to meet both areas’ needs and create a clear process'.
5. Administrative aspects of OLT grants are taken care of by Research Services: This theme was the most prevalent, with staff from 15 institutions commenting that Research Services typically 'holds the budget and central research database' and 'handles administration of contracts and any other legal requirements for grants'. They 'look after grant management post award'.
6. Research Services do compliance checking: One respondent indicated that at their institution Research Services 'review grant applications and ensure they align with OLT Instructions, e.g. aim = 55 words, font 12, number of pages, etc.'.
7. Learning and Teaching Unit strengths: Staff from six institutions commented that while RS largely provided back end assistance, for example, contractual (including legal) and cost centre management, their LTUs maintained a strong front end or developmental input. One respondent referred to the 'the strong cultural base and discipline expertise'; the 'academic review'; and the 'pre application stages … (e.g. workshops, academic advice, publicity'. Another respondent said, 'Existing process allows for Associate Deans Research to approve (OLT) applications for submission, but they have limited experience of preparing L&T grant applications. This has necessitated the development of a process before that which includes the teaching and learning centre as well as the Associate Deans Teaching'.
8. Advantages of LTU and RS working together: Themes 6 and 7 indicate that the LTUs and RSs generally handle different aspects of the development of OLT grant applications and the institutional management of successful bids. Staff from four institutions indicated that there were benefits of RS and LTU working together. One staff member from a B-size institution mentioned that the LTU provides 'the strong cultural base and discipline expertise, while (RS) brings expertise in proposal development and management. It is a good pairing and researchers have responded very well to the higher level of support and advice to which they now have access'. A respondent from another institution said that their LTU and RS had worked together for several years.
9. Hard to get information from Research Services: Staff from two institutions said that their respective RSs entered and held information on successful applications on their databases. A respondent from an A-size institution commented, 'A challenge can be having immediate access to data and information' while at a C-size institution, a staff member said, 'The only real challenge this presents is in records management, in that such documents are ‘owned’ by (RS). All documents post award are filed on the contract file, which can only be accessed by (RS) staff'.
10. LTU given access to RS systems: At one A-size institution, 'Access has been given (to LTU) to an existing database that the (RS) manages to record learning and teaching grants'. A respondent from a D-size institution commented that their LTU and RS have for many years both had access to the database which records both Category 1 and other funding.
11. Opportunities through involvement of RS: A staff member from an A-size institution hoped that as a result of the closer association with RS, further opportunities may emerge 'such as participating in their (RS’s) research mentoring scheme'.
12. Cat 1 = more applications: Anecdotally, OLT grants being accorded Category 1 funding status was resulting in institutions handling a greater number of applicants from research staff who were not familiar or experienced with learning and teaching grants. Of interest, there were only two references made of this in the questionnaire data. A respondent from a B-size institution said, 'Where there is a challenge is now getting interest from academics traditionally not interested in learning and teaching and wanting to pursue a funded category 1 research project, adding additional applications into the pipeline that adds workload to the (LTU staff ‘front-ending’ application development, review and submission)'. A staff member from a C-size institution commented, 'When Category 1 was originally announced I noticed a lot of new faces in workshops. These staff members were discipline experts who were mostly new to learning and teaching. Some developed applications but most didn't'.

Benchmarking

The online questionnaire had two benchmarking questions. The first asked respondents to indicate if their institution had benchmarked any activities, processes and/or resources related to the development of OLT grant applications since the beginning of 2012. The second question sought details of any benchmarking exercise. Only four out of 35 institutions (A6, A7, B2 and D4) answered in the affirmative to the first question. Of interest, two of the four are A-size (smaller) institutions, with A6 and A7 indicating that their benchmarking exercises included reference to information they had become aware of through the OLT Professional Excellence Networks (PENs). (Institution B7 also indicated this). The respondent from Institution A7 said that their benchmarking included success rates comparative to similar-sized institutions. The respondent from Institution D4 said that they had interrogated 'statistical information on grant and award outcomes' as part of their participation in an OLT project. The data from these four institutions did not provide a strong sense of the activities being comprehensive benchmarking projects with documented aims and outcomes along the lines of the Garlick and Pryor (2004) model of institutional improvement. Instead, they were more modest comparison exercises and follow-up activities, similar to limited versions of the McKinnon et al (2000) model of benchmarking.

References

• Garlick, S. & Pryor, G. (2004). Benchmarking the university: Learning about improvement. A report for the Department of Education, Science and Training.
• McKinnon, K. R., Walker, S. H. & Davis, D. (2000). Benchmarking: A manual for Australian universities. Canberra, Australian Capital Territory: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Internal grant schemes

The questionnaire asked respondents to indicate if their institutions had internal learning and teaching grants schemes and, if so, if recipients were encouraged to then develop applications for OLT learning and teaching grants. Internal grants provide applicants with valuable experience in fundamental activities related to running funded learning and teaching projects, for example, developing ideas and applications, creating and managing budgets, forming project teams, undertaking research and evaluation, creating and disseminating resources and writing project reports.

Some significant points drawn from the data are listed below, followed by discussion of findings grouped by size of institution:

1. Twenty-five out of 35 institutions offered internal learning and teaching grants.
2. While A-size institutions are the smallest institutions in the four groupings (A, B, C, D), those that offer learning and teaching grants make a reasonable amount of money available.
3. The total amounts of funding for internal learning and teaching grants generally became progressively bigger from A-size to D-size institutions.
4. Differentiation of types of grant categories (e.g. extension grants, innovation grants, and strategic priority and infrastructure grants) within individual institutions became evident at the level of C-size institutions.
5. Significant investments in strategic funding for learning and teaching infrastructure, for example, learning spaces and specialised learning and teaching software, became evident at the level of C-size institutions.
6. Of the 25 institutions which offered internal learning and teaching grants, 14 encouraged recipients to develop applications for OLT learning and teaching grants. Notably, nine of the 14 were D-size institutions.
7. It is interesting to note that two D-size institutions do not offer any funding for internal learning and teaching grants.
8. Most Australian institutions that offer internal grants have details of their grant schemes publicly available online.

A-size institutions (FTE academic staff <500)

Five out of nine A-size institutions had internal grants. Across these institutions the amount in the 'grants pool' ranged from a maximum of $10,000 at some and up to $150,000 at others, with most individual projects being capped at $10,000 each across the board. Of the five institutions which offered internal grants, two encouraged recipients to develop applications for OLT learning and teaching grants. Representatives of the three others responded with 'not necessarily'.

B-size institutions (academic staff FTE 500 to 1,000)

Five out of eight B-size institutions offered internal learning and teaching grants. Typically, grants of $10,000-25,000 were available and the amount in the 'grants pool' was generally larger than at the A-size institutions. For example, three of the institutions had internal schemes which were funded to between $200,000 and $300,000 annually. Of the five institutions which offered internal grants, only one encouraged recipients to develop applications for OLT learning and teaching grants. Representatives of the four others responded with 'not necessarily'.

Six out of seven C-size institutions offered internal learning and teaching grants. What is clear in the data is the emergence of a more differentiated set of schemes within single institutions of this size, compared with grant schemes at A- and B-size institutions which generally had generic 'learning and teaching grants'. For example, some C-size institutions offered a mix of extension grants, innovation grants, and strategic priority and infrastructure grants in the one institution. Another offered four categories of learning and teaching grants with some focusing on local innovation and others being concerned with community involvement. This particular institution also offered a category with a national focus which obliged grant recipients to collaborate more broadly within the institution and even involve different institutions. The funding pool at C-size institutions ranged from $100,000 to close to $2,000,000 per annum, with individual projects typically receiving between $6,000 and $150,000. The upper limit of close to $2,000,000 was in an institution which was strategically developing its learning and teaching infrastructure, for example, learning spaces and specialised learning and teaching software. Of the six institutions which offered internal grants, three encouraged recipients to develop applications for OLT learning and teaching grants. Representatives of the other three responded with 'not necessarily'.

D-size institutions (FTE academic staff ≥1,500)

Nine out of 11 D-size institutions offered internal learning and teaching grants and the differentiated set of schemes within single institutions of this size was just as apparent as it was in C-size institutions. For example, across the D-size institutions there were grant categories such as: Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) grants, learning and teaching linkage grants, MOOC and educational development grants, teaching fellowship grants and seed grants that lead to the development of OLT grant applications, and learning and teaching innovation grants, to name a few. Of interest, this differentiation at some D-size institutions extended to grants being made for specific academic profiles, for example, teaching-focused academics. In addition, one institution offered a career progression-type grants scheme that focused on Level B and Level C academic staff. Across D-size institutions, funding for individual projects generally ranged from $2,000 to $75,000 with three institutions offering total funding pools of around $1,000,000 each per annum. In addition, one D-size institution will offer approximately $9,000,000 in 2016 to fund strategic, innovative developments in learning and teaching. Of the nine institutions which offered internal grants, eight encouraged recipients to develop applications for OLT learning and teaching grants. Representatives of the other one responded with 'not necessarily'.

Things done well to support applicants

One open-text question early in the online questionnaire focused on what respondents believed their institutions do well in terms of resources, processes and activities used to support authors developing OLT grant applications. It was anticipated that responses to this questions would provide useful insights into the range of practices that exist across the sector. It is important to remember that this question was not meant to elicit everything that each institution did to support authors to develop applications. Instead it concentrates on what people believed their institutions did well. In this way, the data should offer some ideas of potentially good practice in the area. The range of resources, processes and activities mentioned in sum from all categories of institutions (A, B, C, D) is presented in the table below:

The questionnaire data show that some of the smallest institutions, for instance, those in the A-size category, and particularly those that are not universities, have quite limited means when it comes to supporting staff to develop grant applications. For example, the respondent from Institution A1 said, 'As we are a small private provider releasing time to be a partner in the development grants is all we are able to do well'. Their institution infrequently submitted applications where they would be the project leader. The respondent from Institution A5 expressed a similar sentiment by indicating that they rely on being partners in projects led by larger institutions. Nevertheless, other A-size institutions, particularly those with closer to 500 FTE academic staff, signalled that they engaged in a range of activities, for example, communicating opportunities to staff, identifying project ideas that have potential, and offering workshops on OLT grants and application development, including compliance with OLT requirements. One-on-one support for authors was specifically referred to by representatives of most of the nine A-size institutions.

B-size institutions offered grant applicants a number of supports that were evident in the A-size group, for example, communication of opportunities, one-on-one support, and workshops. However, a clearer sense of defined processes was evident in the data, particularly when it came to peer review of applications for formative and summative purposes; the latter being whether or not an institution endorsed an application to be submitted to OLT. The respondent from Institution B3 commented on the approach taken by the internal appraisal panel:

We currently have an assessor panel who review the OLT grants about 8 weeks prior to submission providing the applicant with feedback for improvements to their applications. The panel will only review a fully developed application, it will be up to the panel to decide if the application should progress and be submitted.

Institution B2 also referred to having a strong selection panel which included Deputy Vice Chancellors (both academic and research), Academic Developers, Heads of School, Head of Learning and Teaching and prior OLT grant winners¹. The sense of teams of people working together, for example ‘grants teams’ and ‘assessor panels’, to support authors to develop and assess grant applications is stronger in the data from the B-size institutions than from the A-size institutions.

The data from the seven C-size institutions also suggests a well-resourced approach. This is conveyed well by a respondent from Institution C2:

We have a developmental and staged approach to the development of ideas and actual applications. The processes involve multiple layers of support depending on the significance of the project ideas to the priorities of the university and on the quality of the work being proposed. We also have a well-established group of scholars and experienced grant leaders who provide a blind peer review process of grant proposals in development.

The mention of previously-successful applicants being used as mentors was more evident in C-size institutions than B-size institutions. The respondent from Institution C4 said, 'Previously successful OLT grant winners make themselves available informally to support staff in developing their application' while Institution C7 offered individual consultations with experienced grant writers. At Institution C6 the provision of examples of previously successful applications from within the institution is valued by applicants.

Respondents from D-size institutions mentioned many of the initiatives that were promoted by institutions in other categories. However, the D-group data suggest a stronger sense of documented processes underpinning the development of applications. For example, the respondent from Institution D1 said their university’s 'policy and process relating to OLT programs  provides a very clear and in depth process for the support of potential applicants and of the roles of all those involved across the university - so everyone will know what is expected of them (from the applicant to the VC)'. Documentation was also mentioned by the respondent from Institution D5 who indicated, 'We have developed documents which assist applicants in writing their applications'. Another practice that was highlighted was Institutions D3 and D7 using internal grants as a pipeline to generate a pool of people who could then develop OLT grant applications.

Things that could be done better to support applicants

Respondents were asked to list any areas their institution could develop further to better support the development of OLT grant applications. The data are presented and discussed by size of institution below.

A-size institutions (FTE academic staff <500)

The smaller among these institutions indicated that they had very limited resources to draw upon. Two respondents commented that their institutions could benefit from having internal learning and teaching grants programs. (Only four out of nine A-size institutions had internal grants.) Another said they had 'a very small pool of staff who could apply for (OLT) grants, given the size of our institution'. They thought they could improve the confidence in staff to believe 'that they can actually apply' and connect potential applicants with institutional networks. A fourth respondent said their institution had no internal processes 'given the rarity of applications'. They commented that some protocols and strategies may help and thought they could also utilise the services of an 'external coach' in addition to 'building a clear relationship with relevant officers in OLT'. Similarly, the respondent from a fifth institution said they 'employ a part-time staff member to assist in writing applications'. Another responded indicated they would like to have 'more support in writing the applications'.

Among the larger of the A-size institutions, there was a sense of some activities, resources and processes in place to support grant applicants. Staff from three institutions commented on what could help things along in this space. One respondent said they could have greater organisation of and access to resources, plus they would like to 'encourage applicants to start the writing process earlier'. They also thought they could 'build the culture of critical friends and mentoring from institutional staff'. A staff member from another institution said that more academic staff who had experience running learning and teaching research projects 'would enable a better support network for staff new to the area'. The third contributor said their institution was implementing a panel to 'assess applications at the concept stage' which will allow early identification of projects. This would 'prevent staff time being spent on poor ideas' and also 'identify strong ideas and focus our extremely valuable one on one support'. The introduction of the panel would necessitate the 'development of an accompanying concept form and guidance for assessors'.

B-size institutions (FTE academic staff 500 to 1,000)

Despite their FTE academic staff size, three out of the eight institutions which participated in this research do not have internal grants schemes. Respondents from two of these institutions thought it would be good if they did have such schemes.

Three respondents commented on staff resource issues. One said having 'more staff dedicated to all stages of professional development around grants (and T&L scholarship in general)' would be beneficial. Another wanted their role to be more evaluative of applications rather than providing writing support. They also thought that the impending cessation of funding for a current administrative position was 'a threat to the continuation of program as it is currently configured'. A third respondent thought that (recently) 'suppressed' academic advisor positions should be reinstated to benefit their institution’s OLT grants scheme. They wanted 'more consistent grant writing support' through permanent appointments.

Six staff thought their institutions could do better in terms of helping applicants understand the importance of longer lead in times in developing their applications and being strategic in their approach. One said, 'applicants generally don’t think about T&L grants until the internal EOI for current grants rounds comes out, which is too late to start things'. Another said it is important to help people understand that 'the earlier the conversations and thinking begin about development of a project and who the key participants will be', the greater likelihood of success. They wanted to encourage 'longer term planning by researchers'. The third respondent picked up on this theme, expressing that while they have 'good processes in place, we have more work to do with encouraging staff to be more strategic in their applications and to be more engaged with higher education priorities'. For the fourth respondent, the idea of connecting early with staff helped address applicants’ wasted efforts:

Supporting the generation of ideas for OLT grant proposals, and providing feedback to applicants prior to writing an application to avoid the situation where staff write a full application for a topic which is not within scope of the OLT's priorities.

The fifth questionnaire respondent thought it was important to establish a venue to 'identify, encourage and support ideas that will translate to excellent grant opportunities'. In terms of ‘early connections’ the sixth respondent’s comments concerned late requests for letters of support where the institution would be a partner on an OLT project. They said, 'despite having an explicit internal process … that require academics to notify us early of upcoming involvement in grant applications, we still receive late requests … for letters of support'. On this theme, another person indicated that their internal processes needed to be tightened when they lamented that they needed to 'track OLT grant activity led by other institutions as not all academics report their application activity to us or always use our processes to generate letters of support from (the DVC)'.

Knowing what other institutions do was a way one respondent obtained ideas for what might be done at their institution:

Through participation in the (PEN) network, we learned other universities run grant writing syndicates to allow academics to develop skills and work collaboratively to develop ideas for applications. Initiating and implementing this kind of workshop would be something we'd ideally like to establish to enable capacity building for staff.

C-size institutions (FTE academic staff >1,000 but <1,500)

A desire for more resources was expressed by some respondents in both A- and B-size institutions. One C-size institution commentator made the same point when they said, 'more resources would always be helpful, particularly to support an ever increasing number of proposals in light of the Category 1 funding status that OLT grants now attract'. A person from another institution observed that 'the ICO role was traditionally shared between two professional staff positions (and this) has been reduced to one in 2014 which has also compromised capacity to support applicants more holistically'.

Another theme evident in the A- and B-size institutions was the need for applicants to begin thinking about their projects earlier to allow time for rigorous development. One C-size institution observer said they needed to have 'increased engagement with potential applicants earlier in the grant writing cycle'. This was echoed by another institution’s respondent who thought ‘the earlier the better’ in relation to three activities. Their thoughts are worth relating in full:

First, engage applicants much earlier in the application development process. Some people do start on their applications early and if they’re open to being supported there’s plenty of assistance available to them. Most people, however, come to internal review with incomplete applications and often it’s the first time (the internal review panel) has seen the work. Most times these applications are underdeveloped and are not recommended for endorsement. So, seeing peoples’ work earlier is something we need to work on; (2) Have writing retreats early in the year which offer a mix of information and activities to help people write to the OLT requirements; (3) Have the internal review three to four weeks before the OLT deadline. We've traditionally had it 5-10 working days beforehand which means there’s very little scope for people whose applications require a bit more focused work to develop it further.

At another institution, a respondent thought they had to improve their grant development processes to have the same sort of rigour as they had for the OLT awards.  They had a 'comprehensive and robust process to support and select OLT award nominees … support and resources for supporting grants are limited and greater access to mentors would greatly enhance how we support applicants'. On the matter of better supporting applicants, an Institutional Contact Officer from a different institution thought that greater engagement of educational developers in supporting others to develop grants was desirable; 'the problem with being the ICO or having a dedicated role is that other staff don’t think it’s their business'. The idea of more targeted engagement with applicants was expressed by staff from two other institutions. One said they needed to develop further ways of conveying OLT and sector priorities to staff to stimulate project interests. Another wanted to see 'targeted topics for development into grants', with support over a two- to four-month timeline for staff to develop their applications.

Finally, one questionnaire respondent thought that competing priorities between faculties and central offices 'compromise consistent provision of in-depth feedback and development support for all applicants'. On this point, they thought institutional targets for discipline specific research outputs may have 'taken the focus off learning and teaching in some faculties'. This is interesting to note in relation to the increase in applications due to OLT grants now being Category 1 research funding noted by a B-size institution respondent at the beginning of this section.

D-size institutions (FTE academic staff ≥1,500)

While it is apparent that D-size institutions generally have a greater scale of activities, resources and processes to support the development of OLT grant applications, this does not mean they are without their challenges or areas for improvement.

One D-size institution respondent said that having OLT grants as Category 1 research funding had resulted in 'greater interest … being demonstrated at higher research levels so that there is pressure for OLT grants to be overseen away from the Teaching and Learning area'. Conversely, according to a respondent from another institution, the upgrade to Category 1 was seen as a way of raising the profile of learning and teaching which had for so long 'played a poor relation' to ‘research’:

The tide is most definitely turning with the announcement of the Category 1 success, together with a suite of internal grant opportunities leading to OLT application, and a Vice-Chancellor who has a strong focus on education. We have over several years developed strong relationships with Associate Deans of Education who are now championing the move forward in the teaching and learning space.

In the previous section it was shown that in some C-size institutions, support at the faculty level played a role in OLT grant application development in addition to centralised assistance. One respondent from a D-size institution noted that 'overall OLT grant development is highly devolved to the faculties and schools but also observed that the skill level and time available at the faculty and school level is uneven'. A staff member at another university indicated they although faculty staff reviewed applications, the institution 'do(es) not have staff working at the central level whose focus is the development of OLT grants'. They were, however, beginning to offer some budget development assistance centrally. A commentator from a different institution put forward the following argument to establish centralised assistance:

The university needs to develop a whole of university approach that better supports a progressive grant process, as in, smaller seed type grants that could then be grown into potential OLT grant applications. A more established and clearly specific promoting excellence team that is known across the university as the go-to place for all things OLT. Have a fantastic suite of resources; thus provide the people hours and $s (sic) to achieve that.

To conclude this section, a number of respondents from different universities offered a range of ideas on what they thought their respective institutions could do better to support the development of OLT grant applications. The suggestions basically relate to some important stages of the ‘application development cycle’. One person wanted 'clearer guidelines for how to develop (applications) and wider range of high quality resources'. Another sought greater 'outreach to get more people involved and collaborating'. There was a call from another respondent for 'greater support from senior researchers'. Two commentators from different universities wanted 'further support for developing budgets for grant applications' and 'more support for the key elements of an application, for example, budget and evaluation' respectively. Towards the end of the development cycle are requests concerning 'more detailed assistance with reviewing grant submissions' and using peer review 'more systematically'.

Grant development resources

Sub-sections 7.1 and 7.2 provide information on material and human resources which institutions utilise to support the development of OLT learning and teaching grant applications.

Material resources

Respondents were asked to indicate the material resources available at their institution that support the development of OLT grant applications, even if some appear as part of an internally-created booklet and/or web resource. They could check all options that applied. The results appear in the table below:

 
Respondents who indicated that their institution had internally-created resources were also asked if these were publicly available (e.g. through a website) to people not affiliated with their institution. The responses are listed in the table below:

From the information in the able immediately above, it can be seen that although 31 respondents indicated that their institutions have internally-created resources that support the development of OLT grant applications, at least half of these institutions do not make them publicly available.

Respondents were also asked to list any other material resources (non-human) at their institution to provide support for authors in the grant application development process:

A-size institutions (FTE academic staff <500)

• 'We have a Concept Form available to assist applicants in shaping their concept.'

B-size institutions (FTE academic staff 500 to 1,000) 

• 'Moodle unit where previous grant holders are able to provide 'mentoring' for current/ future applicants. This is a very recent initiative (in the last month).'
• 'Video recordings of workshops on OLT grants. Video recording of a project leader talking about their funded OLT grant (institution-led) and the application process.'

C-size institutions (FTE academic staff >1,000 but <1,500)

• 'We have a project idea development resource which helps people determine whether or not their idea is mature enough for development into a full application.'
• 'Summary of internal key dates and deadlines for submission. Notice of Intent to apply form. External Grants Submission Form (required by research office). FAQs and Tips document. Thinking Questions support document - to assist in considering readiness and appropriateness of a project idea. Note: we try not to duplicate information and documents. We therefore point applicants directly to OLT webpages and documents. This eliminates the need to update internal documents each time there is a change in OLT documents and processes.'
• 'Communications to Learning and Teaching Associate Deans, Directors, Newsletters, and Blogs.'
• 'Any staff member considering an application is asked to complete a 'Notification of Intent to Apply' form.  This form proves useful in getting applicants to start thinking about their application in terms of OLT's guidelines etc. We find at this point, that some applicants realise their grant is not suitable for OLT (e.g. too internally focused) ... I generally forward applicants a soft copy of the relevant OLT instructions but also promote OLT's web site heavily. It contains a lot of useful information and resources.'

D-size institutions (FTE academic staff ≥1,500)

• 'A 'tips for writing an application' sheet - tips taken from a PEN workshop where some grant assessors were present. A Project Concept Form - this requires the potential applicant to clearly explain their project. The form is based around the OLT grant instructions and requirements and is how we decide if their project will be endorsed or not.'
• 'OLT documents that relate to 'changes documents' provided by the OLT, from one year to the next. Project logic model resource. Resources produced by our (PEN) network.'
• 'We have some video resources and are developing these further.'

Human resources

The online questionnaire contained a number of questions that focused on the human resources that institutions utilised to assist staff to develop OLT grant applications:

1. Nature of the human resource available 
2. Assistance to develop concepts and ideas
3. Assistance to write applications
4. Ongoing support for successful applicants

1. Nature of the human resource available 

Questionnaire respondents were initially asked to indicate the nature of the human resource at their institutions who supported the development of OLT grant applications:

* Sometimes referred to as ‘general’ or ‘administrative’ staff

In addition to the information in the table above, one respondent from an A-size institution said that the enthusiasm of the Vice Chancellor was helpful. A respondent from a B-size institution commented that Associate Deans were also key people who assisted OLT grant applicants to develop their applications.

2. Assistance to develop concepts and ideas

Respondents were also asked if academic and/or professional staff work with prospective authors to help develop project concepts and ideas before the substantive task of application development occurs.

3. Assistance to write applications

Respondents were then asked if the academic and/or professional staff play a significant role in writing applications for people who have the ideas for grants. This is more involved than reading, commenting on, and offering editorial support for applications. 

Some respondents who indicated 'Yes' in the table immediately above elaborated on the nature of the writing role: 

A-size institution (FTE academic staff <500)

1. 'In the two most recent grant applications I have been helping the project writing process and included myself as a member of the prospective project team, adding credibility for the project by adding a team member with a track record of involvement in previous successful OLT grant applications.'

B-size institution (FTE academic staff 500 to 1,000)

1. 'Review of concepts and ideas, editing, organisation and prioritisation review. Sometimes, the support comes from providing content expertise support in terms of identifying additional information or providing suggestions on how to resolve some conceptual framework issues that could adversely impact the proposal.'

C-size institution (FTE academic staff >1,000 but <1,500)

1. 'Helping to articulate project ideas more coherently against OLT guidelines and clarify project ideas in the final stages of writing. This is a quality enhancement process to give applicants the best chance of funding success. This is always a collaborative process.'

4. Ongoing support for successful applicants

Respondents were asked to indicate if the following types of ongoing support are offered to successful OLT grant applicants by their institution, faculty and/or school. They could check all that applied.

Grant development processes

Sub-sections 8.1 to 8.7 outline the various processes (e.g. internal review and assessment) institutions use to support the development of OLT learning and teaching grant applications.

Centralised processes

Questionnaire respondents were asked if their institution’s processes around OLT grant application development and appraisal ultimately reflect a centralised approach. For example, the existence of centrally-coordinated development assistance processes, centrally-hosted web information, centrally-organised internal review of applications and centrally-provided feedback to applicants after the internal review. The responses in the table below show that the majority of institutions subscribe to a centralised approach:

A subsequent question gave respondents the opportunity to indicate the nature of any variation from a centralised approach, for example, significant inputs from faculties or schools. While only six of 35 institutions indicated either 'no' or 'uncertain' to a centralised approach, respondents from more than six institutions answered this question. This indicates that the 'yes', 'no' and 'uncertain' categories in the original question may have been too narrow to fully describe the processes at their institutions. The open text responses are presented below by size of institution:

A-size institutions (FTE academic staff <500)

Staff from six A-size institutions provided responses. One of the respondents who indicated 'no' to the centralised approach explained, 'Support is provided by me on an ad hoc basis. (My institution) has had no applications for a number of years'. Another said that 'all grant applications are treated in a similar way'. The third respondent commented, 'Most of the processes of this sort are managed through the Office of the Vice-Chancellor'. The remaining three respondents indicated shared work between the faculties or schools and a central body.

• 'Peer review is undertaken by academics in the faculties. Review is provided by the Selection Panel which has representatives from the faculties.'
• 'The level of faculty support can vary, but the office of learning and teaching provides the same level of support across faculties.'
• 'One school (of eight) offers budget development and some editorial support, but otherwise all support is centralised.'

B-size institutions (FTE academic staff 500 to 1,000)

While all B-size institutions said 'yes' to having centralised processes around OLT grant application development and appraisal, staff from two universities commented on what happens at their institutions: 

• 'Some schools (we have 10) provide more support than others. Those who 'have their heads' in the OLT space provide a much greater level of support than those to which the concept of an OLT/ T&L grant is 'alien'.'
• 'The less centralised activities occur when there is a call for Strategic Commissioned Projects, and the University gets caught up as partner in a major project. Often this happens at the last minute, with no chance for feedback on the full application. The shorter timeframes for these projects tend to lead to a less organised process.'

C-size institutions (FTE academic staff >1,000 but <1,500)

Six of seven C-size institutions said 'yes' to having centralised processes. A respondent from the single institution which said 'no' to a centralised approach indicated that, 'Previously successful OLT grant winners make themselves available informally to support staff in developing their applications. Additionally, the ICO and the Research Office provide compliance and editorial support'. The other respondent who provided an open text response came from an institution with a centralised approach. They acknowledged, however, that 'Applicants in certain faculties may have assistance to develop, for example, budgets. At the time an application is submitted for internal review, however, it enters the centralised process'.

D-size institutions (FTE academic staff ≥1,500)

Nine of the 11 D-size institutions said 'yes' to having a centralised approach for their processes. The two others selected 'uncertain' and here are their explanations:

• 'All applications are currently received through the Awards and Grants team. Development support is provided on request and is regularly offered across campus through the Academic Development role. Support to applicants within faculties and schools is not generally discussed.'
• 'Some school/faculties will offer support but this is on their own initiative and the central learning institution is, for the most part, not involved in this.' 

Respondents from the remaining four institutions show that despite their centralised processes, there is ad hoc support available in the faculties and/or schools:

• 'Our approach is very centralised and the faculties don't have a clear support process in place. However with our new policy/process faculties are going to be called on to be more involved/supportive, e.g. provide mentors for our mentor pool.'
• 'Some faculties have staff with more experience in grant writing than others. These are better able to assist the development of ideas and or budgets.'
• 'Only some of the ... colleges in (my institution) have academic developers who can provide focussed support in the person's area.'
• 'Different faculties have different resources available - including human resources where some faculties have educational development positions which offer support in this area.'

Internal review panels

The questionnaire asked if respondents' institutions have a person or panel/committee that internally assesses the readiness and competitiveness of OLT grant applications before endorsement by the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) [DVC-A] or equivalent. The data in the table below show that while a panel/committee is the most common way to appraise applications, having 'a person' do this accounts for approximately one third of all responses.

Respondents who answered ‘No person or panel/committee does this’ were subsequently asked how OLT grant applications were appraised for their readiness and competitiveness. Their answers are presented by size of institution below:

A-size institutions (FTE academic staff <500)

• 'As we have only been a partner this is not an issue.'
• 'They are peer reviewed by experienced academics. There is a selection committee for internal awards that could fulfil this task.'
• 'Normally developed in partnership with previously successful applicants.'

C-size institutions (FTE academic staff >1,000 but <1,500)

• 'At the start and throughout the peer review process any major issues with a proposal are raised and hopefully addressed.'

D-size institutions (FTE academic staff ≥1,500)

The one respondent who indicated ‘No person or panel/committee does this’ at their institution explained how OLT grant applications were appraised for their readiness and competitiveness:

• 'During the process of application, projects are discussed with the ICO and advice may be given that the project is not ready or competitive. While this is advice, not direction, and is not a formal process it is complied with. Workshops are critical in ensuring projects are discussed at an early stage.'

The quotation above suggests that a formal, summative appraisal process is not utilised at the respondent's institution. Instead, the ICO's advice to applicants determines whether or not the application proceeds to the DVC-A or equivalent for endorsement. This appears to be the only such approach among the D-size institutions.

Internal review panel composition

For those institutions which have a person or panel/committee that internally assesses the readiness and competitiveness of OLT grant applications, the online questionnaire sought details of the positions they held and/or their characteristics (e.g. Academic Developers/Educators, ICO, Grants Officers, Deans: Teaching and Learning, Lecturers, previously-successful grant recipients). Responses are categorised by size of institution below. Note that some titles of office bearers have been made less specific than they originally appeared in the data. For example, DVC-A is used instead of a very specific title which may lead to an institution being easily identified. The information below demonstrates the variability in approaches.

A-size institutions (FTE academic staff <500)

• 'The person is in charge of all academic activities (and they) may seek advice from others such as the Director of Teaching and Learning.'
• 'Lecturers, Educators.'
• 'PVCA, Director L&T, previous recipients, PVC of faculties.'
• 'DVC, PVC, Associate Deans (Learning and Teaching), Director: Learning and Teaching, previously successful grant recipients, Grants Officers.'
• 'Director of Learning and Teaching, Educational Developer, Project Coordinator.'
• 'This panel will be set up in 2015 to assess projects at the concept stage. At this stage we expect the panel to consist of the DVC-A, Director: Teaching and Learning, Head of School, Associate Dean (T&L), previously successful grant recipients, and the ICO (observer).'

B-size institutions (FTE academic staff 500 to 1,000)

• 'ICO, with volunteer support from previously successful grant recipients, with regard to feedback received on previous unsuccessful applications, as well as reference to the OLT Assessor reports and other sources.'
• 'Panel: DVC-A, DVC (Research & Innovation), Academic Developer (Research), HoS, Director (L&T), former OLT grant winners, second Academic Developer or HoS.'
• 'Academic Developers/Educators, ICO, Grants Officers, Deans: Teaching and Learning, Lecturers, previously-successful grant recipients.'
• 'Our committee is chaired by the DVC-A, with six faculty academics (some of whom may have had an OLT teaching grant or award), plus the ICO and one representative from the professional L&T area.'
• 'ICO and Grants & Awards Officer.'
• 'Not a panel, although several input points exist. Where there is a longer lead time, development may include input from one or two experienced academics. The Research Office provides significant feedback either directly or with additional discipline specific input, building on experience with successful grant structures. PVC Student Learning may have input, as may several of the Directors in that (area); Associate Deans L&T have variable levels of interest/input.'
• 'This has varied over the last two years, but typically comprises five to six members: two academics from the centralised learning and teaching unit, and three to four representatives from faculties who either have applied for OLT grants, or have been successful with OLT grants.'

C-size institutions (FTE academic staff >1,000 but <1,500)

• 'Academic Developers/Educators, ICO, Grants Officers, Deans: Teaching and Learning, Lecturers, previously-successful grant recipients. Also, we have recently included a process for all employees of the (Learning and Teaching Centre) where the awards and grants team are located, to review OLT applications and EOIs as a way of building numbers of reviewers, and also as a professional learning experience for them.'
• 'Typically the Grants and Awards Officer and an Academic Developer with expertise in writing and supporting grant applications are the ones that will assess the readiness and competitiveness of an application.'
• 'The DVC-A, PVC L&T, Faculty Associate Deans (L&T), Office Directors, Staff from the Learning and Teaching Centre, the ICO and previously-successful grant recipients provide a mix of support to applicants both administratively and in terms of content / application development against the guidelines.'
• 'A combination of Academic Developers/Educators, ICO, Grants Officers, Deans: Teaching and Learning, Lecturers, previously-successful grant recipients, depending on availability. Predominantly academic and professional staff within the Centre.'
• '(The panel) is drawn from a pool of people who are very experienced in learning and teaching in higher education. They are myself (ICO, [Panel] chair, Academic Developers, Deans: T&L, Associate Heads (T&L) of School, previously successful OLT grant leaders, and staff who assess applications for OLT.'
• 'An Institutional Panel is convened to assess (our University's) applications. The same panel appraises OLT teaching awards and internal awards. As it can potentially meet more than six times a year when all the awards and grants are taken into account, we attempt to minimise the meetings. It comprises Deans T&L, the director of the Centre, past recipients of awards or grants and an Educational Developer. The committee is chaired by the DVC-A, but this is usually delegated to the Executive Director of the Centre because of DVC-A workload.'

D-size institutions (FTE academic staff ≥1,500)

• '(The panel is) appropriately knowledgeable on all things OLT.'
• 'Academic Development (ICO) in the knowledge that Head of School/Dean of Faculty has signed off on the application.'
• 'Grant applications are endorsed by the Dean, Learning and Teaching.'
• 'Academic Director of our office and previously successful grant recipient.'
• 'Head of the (centralised OLT grants team) team. Past national and (our University) award recipients. Also works with the internal educational fellowship scheme. Chairs of Ethics committees.'
• 'Associate Deans (Learning and Teaching) and previously-successful grant recipients are typical members of our selection panel.'
• 'Director: Learning and Teaching, academic developers, previously successful grant recipients.'
• 'The Vice-Provost (Learning and Teaching) chairs, with Associate Deans of Education and a previous grant recipient. ICO and members of the (Central Grants team) are observers at assessment meetings.'
• '(Learning and Teaching Centre) staff and previously successful applicants.'
• 'The Academic ICO (who) is a senior lecturer in the (Centre for Teaching and Learning).'
• 'Teaching and Learning Lecturers, Previously-successful grant recipients.'

A subsequent question asked if the person (typically the DVC-A or equivalent) who usually endorses OLT grant applications for submission to OLT is a regular participant on the panel/committee. The data are presented in the table below and show that while DVC-As or equivalent do attend panel/committee assessment meetings regularly or occasionally, this only happens in about one third of the 35 respondent institutions.

Nature of internal review

Questionnaire respondents briefly described the processes by which OLT grant applications are appraised for their competitiveness and then endorsed for submission to OLT. What is generally apparent in the data presented below is the quantum of established, staged processes and work associated with the support and appraisal of OLT grant applications. Here are the main themes evident in the data:

1. The smaller institutions generally have less formal processes when it comes to the appraisal and endorsement of OLT grant applications.
2. At most institutions, applications are ultimately assessed by a panel which either supports applicants to proceed to submission to OLT or holds back applications for further development. Feedback to applicants is a common feature of the process.
3. Most panels which appraise applications are multidisciplinary in nature.
4. At a few institutions, including the larger ones, an individual—not a panel—undertakes the appraisal of applications and makes recommendations to the DVC-A for endorsement or otherwise.
5. Compliance checking is a common feature of the appraisal process, including whether or not proposed projects align closely with institutional as well as OLT priorities.  
6. An Expression of Interest / Grant Concept / Intent to Submit form is utilised by a number of institutions (B-size upwards) and seems to be a useful way of establishing where concept/application development work is taking place in an institution. This commonly results in the mobilisation of relevant resources and activities to support applicants, e.g. workshops, mentoring, formative peer review. De-identified samples of these forms are available here: OLT Grant Concept Form / OLT Project Concept Form / Intent to Apply Form / Intent to Submit Form / Notification of Intent to Apply (Note: All made available with permissions of the relevant institutions.) 
7. The use of a staged approach for appraisal purposes is evident in a number of institutions. For example, following the submission of an Expression of Interest / Grant Concept / Intent to Submit form, an ICO will meet with the applicant to discuss the application. At some institutions, the applicant meets with a Dean: Teaching and Learning and/or Head of Department/School. If the proposal has merit, the application will proceed (after further development) to the panel for appraisal.

Visitors to this page are encouraged to carefully read the data presented below to appreciate the diversity and particularity of approaches to supporting the development and appraisal of OLT grant applications. 

A-size institutions (FTE academic staff <500)

• 'As we have only been a partner this is not an issue.'
• 'Typically in the development process the applications are discussed with the Director of Teaching and Learning, and when the proposers think they are ready, they are submitted to the Deputy Principal Academic for approval.'
• 'To date, this has been in the context of the Council of Deans (when) our institution has typically been the lead institution. Normally only one application is under way at any one time.'
• 'Review by panel with discussion against OLT criteria.'
• 'Completed applications and EOIs are assessed by the OLT Institutional Review Panel against the relevant grant program selection criteria. The Panel agrees, through a process of discussion and consensus, which applications and EOIs are competitive enough for submission to the OLT. The Panel recommends these applications to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor who makes final approvals and signs letters of support for applications and EOIs going forward.'
• 'N/A. No applications in the past few years. Would need to develop a proper process.'
• 'Applications are reviewed by (LTU) staff in line with the national OLT strategic priorities and specific schemes available at the time. We also work closely with applicants to refine and develop their ideas and proposal. Once the final draft is agreed at the right standard, it is submitted to the DVC(A) along with the institutional support letter.'
• 'We have had no experience here and have no formal processes, but the Research Committee would review an application and make a recommendation to the Principal/CEO.'
• 'At this stage appraisal for competitiveness is done by a single person (me), and if identified as not competitive, I talk with the applicant to provide feedback. If the applicant is a senior staff member this involves consultation with the Director (LTU). However if feedback is rejected, applications are subject to the minimum requirements: general check on compliance with the OLT requirements, financial exposure of the university (i.e. activities where costs are unspecified), sign-off on time release and other in-kind contributions by the relevant head of cost centre.'

B-size institutions (FTE academic staff 500 to 1,000)

• 'This is a very new process - this year, for 2015. Applicants are required to advise the ICO that they intend to submit an application to a particular round of grants. They are then required to have a face to face meeting with the ICO, and then complete the (institution's) Grant Concept Form, after which another meeting is held with the applicant/s and ICO. If there is a suitable mentor available, the team will then be paired with the mentor. The development continues, with drafts of applications reviewed at least twice by the ICO. Final versions of applications are due to the ICO for compliance checking one month before the OLT closing date, at which time further feedback can be given, and adjustments made if needed. An applicant would be discouraged from continuing for a present round if the initial discussions with the ICO/mentor revealed a premature concept, or if the concept was not suitable for the aims and priorities of OLT grants (for example, if an ARC application was trying to be retro-fitted for a 'funding' lottery grab). The new (institution) OLT Grant Concept form has also assisted applicants to recognise where they have gaps in their preparation for submitting a proposal, so they would then be encouraged to do further preparation.'
• '(An) instrument is used to review the application in relation to each requirement within the OLT criteria. The instrument is linked to a rubric. The instrument does have a comment section to tie together the different aspects of the application in order to provide feedback as well as the basis for discussion within the selection panel in relation to competitiveness and endorsement.'
• 'Support provided by (Research Services) Officers with the development of the application. The application is then submitted to the review panel for approval to proceed. The panel will access the application and request a revised application (if necessary) to be submitted for a second review by the panel. They also receive support from the (Research Services) Administration Officer who will check the final application for grammar, formatting and compliance requirements prior to being submitted.'
• 'Internal panel review and feedback. Subsequent review before (DVC-A) approval.'
• 'There are several informal appraisal processes within the faculty, then by me (ICO) before the application reaches the committee. The committee meets and discusses and feedback is provided immediately after the meeting allowing time for changes. Once changes have been made, endorsement is organised through our (LTU) office. Our office also provides quality checks on formatting and budget aspects.'
• '(First) discuss initial ideation and ensure it aligns with OLT objectives. If it does not, advice is given that the application won't be supported in the current form and guidance provided as to how it may be adapted for OLT submission. (Second) Read and review and provide guidance and feedback on early drafts (according to OLT feedback, such as previous Assessors' Evaluations). (Third) Review and minor editing of later drafts. (Fourth) Send Letter of Support outline to (DVC-A) for review, finalisation and signing if supported.'
• 'Alignment with OLT priorities; alignment of skills and expertise; structure and design of project proposal, e.g. is it well defined? Is the methodological approach appropriate? Is the timeline and resourcing realistic?'
• 'Applicants submit their draft proposals one month prior to the OLT closing date. The proposals are assessed by a panel according to their alignment to the OLT Instructions. Feedback is provided to the applicants, and the proposal is either endorsed at that point, or invited to resubmit for the panel's final consideration a week and a half prior to the OLT closing date.'

C-size institutions (FTE academic staff >1,000 but <1,500)

• 'Draft applications are subjected to a thorough peer-review process to determine their suitability and help ensure compliance, before obtaining endorsement from the (DVC-A).'
• 'An intention to submit process to introduce the idea, then support throughout the development period (up to 12 months for some applicants), through a peer review process, conversations between our team and the (DVC-A) and then a final endorsement reading/signing on all grants/partner submissions.'
• 'In the first instance, interested applicants are asked to submit an Intent to Submit form. This form requires details of lead and partner institutions, team members, summary of the proposed project etc. The Grants and Awards Officer will then contact the project leader from each Intent to Submit form received to discuss suitability of the project for OLT funding, compliance requirements, readiness of the project, help determine which funding program is most appropriate etc. At this stage, applicants are strongly encouraged to discuss the project with their Head of School, Associate Dean Education, Executive Dean and/or any other relevant stakeholders. On some occasions we will hold a group information or writing workshop depending on the number of Intent to Submit forms we receive in any one round. Depending on the outcome of the above step, applicants will then submit a draft. Typically these draft applications are appraised for competitiveness and compliance on an individual and ongoing basis for each project. Throughout this writing and refining process, applicants are (also) required to submit an (External Funding) Submission Form. This form requests details required by the research office, but also requires sign off/endorsement by the applicants Head of School and Associate Dean Education. When the project is deemed to be ready for submission and endorsement has been given via the (External Funding) Submission Form, a letter of support is sought from the (DVC-A).'
• 'Faculty Associate Deans L&T and Office Directors are required to liaise with applicants prior to a submission ... for consideration by the (DVC-A).'
• 'Potential applicants are asked to submit a (Intent to Submit) Form prior to commencing work on their application. This form is useful in the applicant performing a self-appraisal against the OLT guidelines. Applications are reviewed internally and feedback is provided with suggested areas of amendment.  Final drafts are provided to the (Director L&T), as the (DVC-A)'s nominee, to provide final decision on institutional endorsement.'
• 'The internal panel) appraises applications at the internal review meeting. This has traditionally been held 5-10 working days before the OLT deadline. Applicants and other ... team members (from this institution) are invited to the (panel) meeting to discuss their application and answer questions from (panel) members. This normally takes between 15-30mins for each application. At the meeting, (the panel) generally gives applicants an idea of what the recommendation to the (DVC-A) will be. After the meeting the (panel) chair produces a report for the (DVC-A) which contains recommendations, accompanied by a brief overview of each project and feedback for authors. The materials submitted by applicants are attached to the report as appendixes. The (DVC-A) then provides the endorsement. In almost all cases, the (DVC-A) follows the recommendation of (the panel).'
• '(First) EOI to submit sent to ICO at least six weeks in advance of deadline. (Second) Developed proposals are required to be sent to the ICO no later than three weeks prior to submission. (Third) Appraisal occurs either proceed or delay till next round. Feedback given with requirement to return two weeks prior in the case of those to proceed. (Fourth) ICO writes to (DVC-A) seeking institutional endorsement for applications given approval to proceed. (Fifth) ICO submits list to OLT one week prior to submission date. (Sixth) Applicants upload applications when signed letter is returned.'

D-size institutions (FTE academic staff ≥1,500)

• 'The potential applicant must complete a Grant Concept form. The form is compliance checked and then sent for review. It will be accepted (move forward to apply to the OLT) or rejected (try next round or needs radical re-development) with feedback.'
• 'Applications are received through the Awards and Grants team three/four weeks prior to the OLT due date for checking, OLT compliance and focus on university priorities. Once finalised, applications are signed off by (DVC-A) before being returned to applicants for submission.'
• 'Applicants work with faculty staff to develop their proposals and some faculties have committees which vet and exclude applications that lack development. Applications that complete this process are then forwarded to the Dean, Learning and Teaching, who reads them and then decides whether they are suitable for endorsement. Once recommended for endorsement they are sent up to the (DVC-A) for signature.'
• '(The ICO) read(s) the applications. Once the intention to submit a grant is made known, a letter of support from the author's HOD is required with a copy of the application as well as a draft of the letter of institutional support. These are reviewed by our office (LTU) and then endorsed to the (DVC-A) who arranges for the letter of institutional support to be written and then signs it. It is then returned to the author (for submission to OLT).'
• 'Applications are read by a number of people, including the (LTU grants and awards) team, ... colleagues of the applicant and also by a member of a network in (this institution) who can comment from the point of view of a different discipline. All applications are then given to the (DVC-A) to endorse or to make further comments on before they are returned to the applicants for submission to OLT.'
• 'Applications are submitted to the ICO by a certain date, and then passed to the selection panel along with a copy of the OLT selection criteria and a form for initial assessment and feedback. At the meeting, panel members give an initial response of Yes/No/Maybe. If there is consensus, endorsement is agreed. If there is a lack of consensus, that application is discussed further before a decision is made. In some instances, endorsement may only be granted provided the applicant makes certain revisions to the application. Regardless of the outcome, feedback is provided for all applicants. Feedback is discussed in the meeting and noted by the ICO, who then passes the feedback onto the applicants.'
• 'The applications are assessed against the OLT criteria. Feedback is given well in advance of due dates. They (the applications) are then reassessed by the Director (LTU) and taken to the (DVC-A) for endorsement.'
• 'The panel receives all applications a week before assessment. They are provided with a ranking and feedback form. They have the power to say Yes or Reject or recommend revision and resubmission. The (Grants and Awards ) team are responsible for feeding back the panel's decisions/comments. The internal closing date for (our institution) is six weeks before the OLT closing date.'
• 'We (the LTU) read drafts of applications and offer advice.'
• 'This is not done formally but the ICOs do play this role ... through workshops and individual support in the development of applications. The (ICOs) deal with compliance issues, e.g. checking budgets and (academic/conceptual) issues.'

Timing of internal review

The questionnaire asked respondents to indicate approximately how many weeks prior to the OLT grant application submission deadline their institution's internal review process took place.

Challenges and bottlenecks

The questionnaire asked respondents to list any challenges or bottlenecks encountered in relation to the time between internal review and the OLT grant application submission deadlines. Seventeen discrete themes were identified in the data. They are introduced in the table below with an indication of how many references were made to each theme and in which size institutions they were made.

 
The 17 themes are listed below along with the relevant quotes and the size of institution where the quotes were made.

Challenging to procure letters of support in time (six references in the data)

• 'Getting the letter of support from the SDVC (DVC-A) who wants to see financial approval and individually read each proposal prior to submission also creates a potential for bottlenecks when the additional complication of (the DVC-A’s) schedule is added to the mix.' (B-size institution)
• 'We often get a lot of last minute requests for endorsement for collaborative projects, and this can create a strain. Obtaining endorsement letters generally is probably one of the biggest causes of ‘bottleneck’.' (C-size institution)
• 'Getting letters of endorsement from partners in the case of Full proposals.' (C-size institution)
• 'In terms of internal processes, the biggest challenge between internal review and grant submission is get all the necessary signatures of support.' (C-size institution)
• '(DVC-A) endorsement letter bottleneck; they all come in around the same time and of course we have no idea how many partner letters will come in - trying to work out a way to ease that.' (D-size institution)
• 'Finding time for the (DVC-A) … to sign off has its issues.' (D-size institution)

People are time-poor (seven references in the data)

Applicants

• 'Researchers (Applicants) unavailable due to teaching commitments and therefore do not have time to address the panel’s comments.' (B-size institution)
• 'People who have either expertise and leadership to lead an OLT grant are often very busy people and they struggle to meet deadlines because of other key commitments which makes the last few weeks leading up to OLT submission time very stressful for everyone.' (B-size institution)
• 'Other priorities for applicants.' (C-size institution)
• 'Applicants tend to leave everything to the last minute.' (C-size institution)
• 'Often applicants are struggling to manage a range of competing priorities.' (C-size institution)

Others

• 'Often applicants work over weekends to meet internal and OLT deadlines. This places pressure on the RO (who does compliance checks) and the (DVC-A) who has reduced time to review submissions.' (C-size institution)

Last minute applications (four references in the data)

• 'Last minute declarations of intent to submit can be challenging with any funding scheme.' (B-size institution)
• 'Late submissions from applicants are always a concern.' (D-size institution)
• 'Staff typically are very late in their notification to us so the time between notification and OLT grant application deadlines is short!' (D-size institution)
• 'Applications have occasionally appeared 'out of the wood work' at the last minute.' (D-size institution)

Challenges with the availability of the internal review panel (four references in the data)

• 'The availability of the (DVC-A).' (A-size institution)
• 'Getting the panel together.' (A-size institution)
• 'Organising the availability of panel members is sometimes challenging.' (B-size institution)
• 'Other priorities for … reviewers.' (C-size institution)

OLT deadline challenge (three references in the data)

• 'Difficulty for successful EOIs to develop into Full applications if the OLT makes late announcements of successful EOIs.' (B-size institution)
• 'The biggest challenge is the very short time frame from when OLT announces grant programs and the deadline for submission. This is a huge challenge given the many other programs we are managing and supporting.' (C-size institution)
• 'The biggest challenge is when we're not given sufficient notice from the OLT of its deadlines and application guidelines. This limits the amount of time possible between internal review and OLT submission, which means there is less chance to assist 'almost-there' applications reach the required standard for endorsement.' (D-size institution)

Limited human resource (two references in the data)

• 'I am but one person. Other than that, (my institution) has none (no one else to do the administrative and grant developmental work).' (B-size institution)
• 'Working (FTE)0.4, and with numerous grants and some academics late in submitting drafts, it’s often difficult to provide the kind of information required to ensure the grant (application) is of a high standard.' (B-size institution)

Getting timely updates from applicants (two references in the data)

• 'Getting revised drafts back from applicants.' (A-size institution)
• 'Editing and finalising of projects is often last minute, despite requirement to re submit final version before due date.' (C-size institution)

Underdeveloped or non-compliant applications (two references in the data)

• 'The main bottleneck is if the application is non-compliant, e.g. budget for an outrageous amount, some activities unbudgeted and further discussion with the applicant is required.' (A-size institution)
• 'Proposals that are underdeveloped.' (D-size institution)

Applicants underestimate what is required (two references in the data)

• 'Often applicants … underestimate the requirements for submissions.' (C-size institution)
• 'Some applicants underestimate the time taken to submit. We do stress it takes time.' (D-size institution)

Difficult for applicants to update applications in time available (two references in the data)

• 'If substantial changes are recommended it can be a challenge for applicants to complete these on time.' (A-size institution)
• 'There can be some time delays in the final tweaking of applications, to make them fit into the required page length, with sub-editing of the text, and then reading again. And particularly with managing the budget figures and making them work.' (D-size institution)

Dealing with a large number of applications (two references in the data)

• 'Also, our process of copy editing, which occurs two weeks prior to submission can be held up by … the number of applications submitted.' (A-size institution)
• 'There is a bottleneck when the Concept Forms come in for review.' (D-size institution)

Applicants not being aware of internal deadlines (one reference in the data)

• 'Applicants may go direct to OLT website and not be aware of internal deadlines.' (D-size institution)

Internal budget review process (one reference in the data)

• 'Bottleneck tends to be in the institutional demand that all proposals are required to undergo an internal budgetary review process.' (B-size institution)

Late viewing of applications (one reference in the data)

• 'Sometimes the first (the internal review panel) members see of an application is when it is submitted for internal review. Most of the time this is particularly challenging for both (the panel) and applicants. Most of the time these applications are not recommended for endorsement.' (C-size institution)

Lateness of receiving partner applications (one reference in the data)

• 'Difficulty of receiving Partner applications on time for internal review.' (B-size institution)

Long lead-in times (one reference in the data)

• 'Our central processes are typically quite slow and applicants complain that they are required to complete the applications earlier than they would like.' (D-size institution)

Extension requests for internal submission (one reference in the data)

• 'Many applicants request an extension to internal review deadline, but expect feedback within the nominated timeframe. This can prove challenging to the internal reviewers. Extensions are also often requested for the final internal submission which puts pressure on the (Learning and Teaching Unit) to ensure nominated date for submission to (DVC-A) is met.' (C-size institution)

Assessing requests to partner

The questionnaire asked respondents how applications led by other institutions—where their institution is invited to be a partner—are appraised for suitability. For example, are they treated differently than applications where the respondent's institution would be the lead? Further, who appraises these applications? The data are presented below and categorised by the size of the institution. Overall, the data indicate that there are two main ways of handling this. The most prevalent one is to run a modified process. The other, much less common way is for institutions to use the same processes as when assessing one of their own applications. An occasional theme is the challenge associated with receiving late requests to be a partner. Note the fifth comment under the heading C-size institutions as a possible solution.

A-size institutions (FTE academic staff <500)

Only two A-size institutions used the same processes as when assessing one of their own applications.

Same processes as when assessing own applications

• 'Appraised in the same way as internal applications (by a panel/committee).'
• 'The proposal is reviewed by the office of learning and teaching grants team, and support offered for the institutional support letter to ensure alignment with university values and strategies.'

Modified processes

• 'Looked at by our Academic Board.'
• 'We have only had one such application and this was appraised by the Principal/CEO.'
• 'It goes to the Head of Higher Education and Research and the Director to approve.'
• 'Typically (for the rare instances where this happens) it is through one or two identified people within our institution.'
• 'Usually the first step is gain some in principle support from the PVCA.'
• 'Partner applications are not appraised by a panel. Partner applications are appraised by the Head of School and Deputy Vice-Chancellor who sign a cover sheet and letter of support.'
• 'Partner projects are nearly always difficult, as we are often notified of these at short notice. All partner applications are subject to institutional compliance checking which is less stringent than proposals where (our University) is the lead. (They are) are appraised for quality and suitability in addition to the general check on compliance with the OLT requirements, financial exposure of the university (i.e. activities where costs are unspecified), sign-off on time release and other in-kind contributions by the relevant head of cost centre. The leverage we have for this is that the (DVC-A's office will) only supply a letter on request from the ICO ... Occasionally ... projects request letters from the Senior DVC bypassing this process.'

B-size institutions (FTE academic staff 500 to 1,000)

All respondents from B-size institutions indicated that there was a modified process, even when the panel or committee that appraised their own institution's applications were involved.

Modified processes

• 'These are treated differently. If a request to partner is received, I just check that the application is complying, and that the budget amounts committed to by (our University) are supported by the School involved.'
• 'Only done informally upon request by (our University's) participant. These are not tracked into our internal review processes.'
• 'They are reviewed by the same office that reviews all OLT applications, but not as extensively.'
• 'Very differently. I, as Grants and Awards Officer, review briefly for alignment with our University's policy and to see if it can support those aims. We compile the Letter of Support and are not really involved at all in any further drafting/editing process.'
• 'Treated differently. Expectation is that the bulk of application development/project mentoring would occur through lead organisation. Applications are still reviewed for relevance and suitability both in terms of OLT scheme and institutional involvement and also to ensure commitments proposed are appropriate.'
• 'Partner applications are reviewed by the same panel which reviews lead applications (but) the Advisory Panel is only required to make a full assessment of (our University)-led applications. However, the panel is to review the partner applications to ensure they are credible proposals, and reasonable in terms of (our University’s budget and resource contributions.'

C-size institutions (FTE academic staff >1,000 but <1,500)

Same processes as when assessing own applications

• 'The (DVC) assesses an 'Intention to Submit' for full lead applicants through to partner applications. This ensures that the partner invitations don't override other full lead applications for projects in the same areas that are priorities for our institution and also so that we can ensure that our participation on other lead grants is also within areas of priority for learning and teaching.'

Modified processes

• 'Collaborative proposals are assessed by the DVC(A) and (our University's) involvement is endorsed or not as the case may be.'
• 'These collaborative projects are not appraised in the same way lead grants are. On many occasions I have found that other institutions are not always forthcoming with sharing drafts prior to submission. Often the request for a letter of support on a collaborative grant comes in late, not allowing suitable time to review a draft. To some degree, we trust that those lead institutions have their own institutional appraisal processes and are meeting OLT submission requirements in the same way we appraise our lead projects for suitability and compliance.'
• 'Staff who partner with other lead university projects must submit a project proposal to the DVC-A for consideration and endorsement.  Associate Deans / Office Directors also need to be made aware of these projects and will often provide input into the role (our University's) staff play in any application.'
• 'These applications are usually submitted in draft when requesting endorsement by DVC(A). This is acceptable on the proviso that no amendments are made to (our University's) participation (e.g. time or budget commitments) in future iterations. Internal review of these applications is less  thorough than (our University) led applications, as it is assumed (rightly or wrongly) that the lead institution will have their own review process.'
• 'These applications are read by me as the (panel) chair. I then make recommendations to the (DVC-A). We were becoming overwhelmed with multiple, very late requests for (our University) to be a partner and reached the conclusion that such requests were from people 'fishing around' after requests for other institutions to be partners fell through. We did not think this was very strategic. To address late requests we stipulated that none would be entertained that arrived later than one calendar week before the OLT deadline. On the whole, this seems to have worked.'
• 'These are appraised by the ICO; me. Where there ... appears to be an issue, they are referred to another colleague in the Educational Development team. The institutional panel is convened only for (our University's) lead applications. It is unusual for an application where (our University) is a partner to be rejected.'

D-size institutions (FTE academic staff ≥1,500)

Same processes as when assessing own applications

• 'Applications are appraised by the Dean, Learning and Teaching, who endorses them and then recommends they be endorsed by the (DVC-A). Partnership projects and projects where (our University) is the lead university are treated in the same way.'
• 'The same person appraises the lead and partner proposals so no difference.'
• 'They go through the same process of being assessed by the panel.'
• 'They are treated the same as other applications.'

Modified processes

• 'The same person who appraises our lead applications also checks the partner applications. However we are more lenient on what will be endorsed and will sometimes provide feedback to the project leader.'
• 'There is no appraisal undertaken for applications lead by other institutions though sign off is provided through the Office of the DVCE.'
• 'The applications often come very late in the process to our office and so we may be unaware of their nature. They are given to the academic in our team who will appraise them and discuss with us his thoughts on supporting the partner application.'
• 'These are not treated the same way as applications for which we are lead. A copy of the draft application is requested before endorsement is provided, but they do not go through a panel selection process.'
• 'Institutional endorsement letters are drafted by the (local) project team member to be adjusted where necessary by the (DVC-A).'
• 'They are treated differently from appraising grant applications.'

Grant development activities

This section documents activities (e.g. professional development) which institutions use to assist applicants develop OLT learning and teaching grant applications.

Types of activities on offer

Questionnaire respondents indicated OLT grant application development activities that were available at their institution. See the table below for the activity types.

* PENs = Promoting Excellence Networks.

Most effective / valued activities

Eleven main themes were identified from respondents’ open text responses to the question, ‘In your experience, what activity or activities do you think are particularly useful for supporting the development of OLT learning and teaching grant applications?’

 * Q.36 in the survey asked respondents to indicate (via check boxes) the sorts of grant application development activities available at their institution. The options were Information sessions about OLT grants, workshops on how to develop applications, mentor arrangements and writing retreats.