Interviews with OLT grant applicants: data and discussion

Interview questions

Ethics-compliant interviews with previous OLT grant applicants were semi-structured and took between 20-30mins each. The data were analysed using NVIVO 10. Fifteen significant themes were identified in the interview data and together they paint a rich picture of the grant application and development process. Each theme is presented as a discrete chapter in this  MOODLE book resource (see Table of Contents to the left). The data and themes demonstrate that the applicants, as key instigators and authors of their grant applications, engaged with a broad range of considerations and activities that culminated in the completed grant application. Their comments and experiences will be very valuable and instructive to prospective applicants as well as staff who support applicants to develop applications.

The fundamental questions asked of interviewees during the recorded, semi-structured sessions were:

1. Briefly describe your experiences in developing your grant application(s), for example, sort(s) of application(s), success or lack thereof, and recollections of the application development process.
2. What was the nature of support that was most helpful to you during the development of your grant application?
3. List areas you believe your institution could introduce or develop further to better support the development of grant applications.
4. What advice would you give people who are developing their own applications for OLT grants? Is there any particular resource, process or activity you would especially recommend to them?

Interviewee details

The Project interviewed 10 academic staff who had previously applied for OLT grants. All but one had experienced success in winning one or more OLT grants to undertake learning and teaching projects. Pseudonyms have been used and, rather than listing the names of institutions at which people work, this resource utilises the same categorisation approach that was used for the online questionnaire, that is, on the basis of numbers of FTE academic staff*.

1. Mikko (A-size institution)
2. Chris (C-size institution)
3. Sally (C-size institution)
4. Lucy (C-size institution)
5. Vivien (C-size institution)
6. Barbara (D-size institution)
7. Gerry (D-size institution)
8. Trevor (D-size institution)
9. Sam (D-size institution)
10. Bill (D-size institution)

* Where A-size institutions = less than 500 FTE academic staff; C-size institution = between 1,000-1,500 FTE academic staff; and D-size institution = institutions with 1,500 or more FTE academic staff.

Budget development

Key points from the data:

• Applicants can find constructing a budget to be a real challenge.
• Budgets can take a significant amount of time to construct.
• Assistance to develop a budget was particularly welcomed by applicants.
• Even though a faculty or a school may offer budget development assistance, they may not necessarily be familiar with OLT grants and related budget requirements.

Assistance to develop a budget was particularly welcomed by applicants. Sally (C-size institution) commented, 'Most people struggle with budgets. There's no resource available in our School, even for ARC grants, that says to you 'This is what you should allow for air fares, per diem, taxi fares …''.

Sam (D) greatly appreciated the administrative assistance at his institution. He said they 'also helped with the budget as well and seriously what we found with some of the others is that the budgeting takes 50% of the time … so to have that scaffolded was really good, kind of took the sting out of putting in the proposals'. Trevor (D), too, reflected on the assistance he had received to construct the budget for his application:

Going through the process of getting a PhD and working at universities you learn nothing at all about budgeting and this was really a great process to learn about writing budgets … Really good help about writing the budget, making the budget look good, attractive. You know where we are asking for money for things that they want to spend money on.  That was really, really crucial. Without the help around the budgeting we wouldn't have got it.

Chris’s (C) experience was a little different. Although his institution had a central unit that provided assistance to OLT grant applicants, he also sought support at both the School and Faculty level where dedicated groups of people helped staff develop applications, or parts of applications (e.g. budgets), for non-OLT funding opportunities (e.g. ARC grants). He said, 'A central team in the School … research support … does triage on applications, assigns jobs, e.g. budgets, to people. The Faculty also has a budget team. That team doesn’t appear to be familiar with OLT. I was surprised by this'.

Building the project team

Key points from the data:

• Building a project team requires serious thought and can take time.
• The 'right' project team has members who contribute a range of complementary strengths and experiences.
• The 'right' project team has members who contribute as required/expected and do not have to be hounded to do the work.
• The 'right' project team is 'fit for purpose' in terms of, for example, team size, the skills and experiences of team members, and the nature of project officer/manager involvement.

Eight of the ten interviewees commented on the importance of building the ‘right’ project team for the proposed project. The main aspects of team formation were assembling a group of people who could work with each other and also contribute different but complementary knowledge, skills and experiences. The data suggest that assembling a project team is a strategic undertaking that can take some time.

Agnes (D-size institution) suggested applicants should 'have thought about the team they’re going to work with. They don’t have to have a final team but … you’ve got to start with some kind of collective team and cohesive team from the word go'. Chris’s (C) advice was to work with a diverse team which had experience in applying for grants. In his case, a colleague from the same university and on his team had been successful in winning grants in other countries and a team member from another institution 'had a focused and incisive reading of what OLT want'. Trevor (D) made a recommendation along a similar line:

In the writing of those two (successful) grants, a benefit I had was that I was writing with people who were experienced writers of grants anyway, so the other researchers on those teams were a great source of input.

Trevor (D) also commented that the project officer selected to be part of the team 'knew the OLT side of stuff really well'.

Gerry (D) said 'getting the right people involved and on advisory panels, drawing on participants’ networks' was a key and encouraged 'connections with colleagues in the uni and at other universities'. Mikko (A) echoed Gerry's advice by encouraging people to 'develop networks and collaborative teams with colleagues to pursue research and development ideas in your areas of expertise'.

Reflecting on an unsuccessful OLT grant application in which her institution was a partner, Vivien (C) offered a perspective on the size of the team:

I think they did try to include too many people, so too many cooks, and I’ve noticed over the years that the OLT has become more relaxed about small teams … I think the people got their dissemination strategy muddled up with their team composition and you can actually get better dissemination with a small team if that team is functional.

On the matter of being asked to join a project led by another institution, Agnes (D) indicated she preferred a reasonable lead in time for the request to be made. She described one occasion when she was contacted by a lead author from another institution who told her that the application was due in three to four weeks and asked, 'Do you want to work with us?' Agnes (D) commented, 'I have learnt now to say No'. She reflected on her own experience of spending up to six months to put a team together:

Don’t try to do it in less than four months.  Four to six months is ideal, especially if you’re working with national colleagues which you should be.  In fact, I’ll tell you now, basically don’t come otherwise.

Clearly, giving due consideration to who will make up the project team is an important task for lead authors.

Sally (C), Bill (D) and Trevor (D) were all quite strategic in their approach to building their teams, although they did this in slightly different ways. Bill (D) built his team through the ‘project before the project’, that is, he initially piloted his project idea without funding. His approach was well-planned. The pilot project not only tested the potential of the project idea to be scaled up by means a national grant but it also provided the opportunity for people to get a sense of how well they worked together:

We wanted the project to work independent of money, it’s just that the money helps do some things … So the process is first of all helpful for the writers to articulate and it also pulls together a team you know so you can actually get stuff, more stuff done even just because you’re getting other people to think oh yeah I didn’t understand that completely before, I know what you’re doing better now.  So you know building that team and, so all those things can be part of a process which can have … positive benefits.

While Sally (C) had expertise in the topic of her grant application, she found that 'fitting it into an educational framework that came with certain language was the more challenging part'. As such, she found it very helpful to have a partner who either worked in a ‘university teaching unit’ and/or had an educational background 'because of the particular language that OLT uses'. She said, 'It was really important they came from a different perspective to me … and that’s really helped. Because of the broadening and the language, yeah'.

Trevor's (D) approach was to look for a mix of experts and novices by building 'a team of mixed expertise and career stage' believing that both would bring something different and special to a project.

All interviewees, then, believe that ‘good teams’ are composed of people whose different experiences and strengths are complementary.

A final thought was provided by Sally (C) who brought up the matter of team members' contributions to a project’s work. She stressed that it was important to choose project partners 'who would put in equal load. When you asked them to do something they’d do it. You wouldn’t have to chase them'. The importance of this is self-evident. It suggests that applicants should have some at least some familiarity with the work of potential team members as well as an idea of their availability/ability to contribute to the project.

In all, the experiences of the interviewees suggest that the formation of a project team should be a strategic, thoughtful undertaking which takes into account the needs of the project and the nature of the funding body. Forming a project team requires time, thinking and discussion rather than being a last-minute, frantic exercise to fit people to a largely-formed application. Having the team established either through prior work and collaboration or through networks can also result in a sense of ownership, authorship, design and community within the team. This complementarity and cohesiveness is likely to be evident in the grant application.

Centralised assistance

Key points from the data:

• Applicants appreciate the assistance provided to them from central units.
• Information provision is a common form of assistance but it can extend to much more depending on the nature of the assistance available, e.g. help to construct the budget, reading draft work and providing feedback.
• Centralised assistance can help applicants better understand the nature and expectations of the funding body and what is required in an application.
• Centralised assistance is generally provided by professional staff and/or academic staff.
• While applicants are likely to shoulder the responsibility for authoring the grant application, they can and should take advantage of any internal or centralised assistance that is available.

A number of interviewees indicated that assistance provided to them by professional (sometimes called administrative or general) staff and/or academic staff from ‘centralised’ units or departments at their institution was very useful. Typically, the staff were grants officers and/or academic developers and the assistance ranged from provision of grant-related information (e.g. details about OLT grants and grant characteristics) to advice on constructing budgets, developing applications and providing feedback on draft work. (See also Chapter 14: Internal review feedback.)

Sam (D-size institution) said, '(Professional staff member 1) and (professional staff member 2) stood up and gave a very clear presentation'. In terms of assisting with the development of the application, Sam (D) recalled he received 'advice on stupid little things that we would have known if we had read the call for tenders but we either didn’t or didn’t read it properly so in that respect it was very good to have someone very clearly and quickly explain stuff that may have taken longer to work out ourselves or we may well have missed it altogether'. He continued, 'Every time we asked for something we got a response. Can’t ask for more than that'.

An interesting finding to emerge from the data concerned the relationship between academic applicants and professional staff in terms of roles and expertise. Agnes (D) provided an insight into professional staff as ‘information providers’ when she had some questions about Extension Grants: 'I certainly had a couple of questions for (the professional staff member) but more around the administrative side. I didn’t particularly need anything around the more academic side'.

Vivien (C) also acknowledged ‘information provision’ when she said that the professional staff member who was the ‘grants officer’ at her institution 'was very good at sending through information'. At her institution, anyone who is interested in applying must initially register their intention with the grants officer where 'the first thing they … do is look which priority you are sitting under because that’s where people tend to stuff up. They know what they’d like to do but they’re not fitting the agenda. So they get that guidance right up front'. At Vivien’s (C) institution there was also at least one academic developer who worked centrally and looked at draft applications with the grants officer:

Anyone who puts in an application (has) two people look at it; in our case it was (the academic developer) and (the grants officer) and so we got feedback on that, and that was good feedback. You can’t get enough feedback.

Sometimes professional staff had greater involvement than only providing information. Sam (D) made a salient statement in this regard:

Whereas with the … (internal) feedback (on applications) even though it is obvious the central team are not experts in our particular area they are experts in teaching and learning and they were able to give you some push back there.  They read it properly so they were more logical with what fits where.  So there was more substantive feedback.  I know there are lots of academics that will say you don’t know this area I am an expert in it, but actually you realise that they are … intelligent lay people, like (professional staff member 1) and (professional staff member 2), so if (they) don’t get it the chances of the referees (examiners) getting it are less. You have to be less precious about it.

Gerry (D) appreciated 'having access to … individuals to review portions of the application'. For Bill (D), just having someone from the central unit to bounce ideas off was appreciated: 'It was just getting some support from other people, you know?' The assistance he valued was 'reviewing drafts and giving feedback and comments on ways of articulating things, asking questions about, well, what the methodology is. ‘Are you really using an action research methodology?’ So just, well now I think about it kind of you know useful and probably substantial feedback based on some experiences that (the professional staff member) had with some other grants maybe over a year or two'.

Mikko (A) provided a slightly different perspective, citing that support from educational leaders was also important. He commented, 'Leadership support for approving project ideas and encouraging applications, including being open minded about areas for projects. The leader also paved the way for getting high-level approval for the projects from other institutions'.

What is evident in this section is the fact that while applicants are likely to shoulder the responsibility for authoring grant applications, they can and should take advantage of any internal or centralised assistance that is available.

Clarifying the project idea

Key points from the data:

• An initial challenge faced by many aspiring applicants is clarifying the project idea for a grant application.
• Clarifying the project idea can be a time-consuming process.
• A good starting point is for aspiring applicants to think first of all about learning and teaching in terms of what they are trying to achieve in their courses and programs. This can inform the 'problem' or identify the 'gap'.
• Looking at OLT Good Practice reports and reviewing completed project reports and resources can be instructive.
• Applicants should not pursue a grant solely because of the kudos or for the benefit of their CV. They should have a genuine interest in the learning and teaching issue at hand. Also, projects demand a significant work commitment over an extended period of time.
• Applicants should discuss their ideas with their department and faculty learning and teaching leaders, as well as any relevant professional bodies 'to see what they think' of the project idea and the level of commitment of human and other resources that might be required.   

An initial challenge faced by many aspiring applicants is clarifying the project idea for a grant application. Suggestions from a number of interviewees are particularly instructive in this regard. Their advice is to give it adequate thought over a reasonable time and do it for the right reasons. For example, Lucy (C-size institution) advises:

Don't apply for grants if really you don't have an intrinsic interest in it. People have asked me, ‘How do you get an OLT grant?’ I’m, like, ‘Well, what's your topic? What are you interested in?’ … If you're just applying ‘cause you think you're going to grab a bunch of money and this will somehow be good on your CV, well, I just don’t think so.  But if you have a really intrinsic interest, something that you really want to find out or you believe you can make a contribution, put your grant application together.  That passion for the topic will come through in your work.

Bill’s (D) advice complements Lucy's position. He suggests that rather than starting out writing a grant application, aspiring applicants should think first of all about learning and teaching in terms of what they are trying to achieve in their courses and programs. He said, 'So to take a real strong look not from a grant orientation but from a learning perspective and to start on that basis … and start to grow that work'. In Chapter 9 (Do the work anyway!), it will be shown that Bill (D) is a believer in ‘the project before the project’, that is, finding like-minded people (even with different strengths and perspectives) to engage in pilot work—unfunded if necessary—to ‘action research’ an idea and provide evidence of its efficacy and worth. His poignant reflections are worth relating in full:

So if you know well more than a year beforehand people need to be sort of building up things, maybe doing abstracts for conferences on the theme that they're interested in … I think it's at least a year and a half lag, two year lag before … submitting (an application). They'd be doing the substantial work.  You're hearing so often about 'Oh the grant rounds are coming up what are we going to do?' I've actually you know had conversations with people who have asked me that sort of question, 'What can we get together?' … I don’t like that mentality at all. I think people should actually already have a trajectory and then they say, 'Okay now we've got a trajectory … we've piloted it, we've got a little bit of internal funding, you know we've done some good evaluation, we've started to go to conferences, now maybe we can …' So there's a track record that says this thing might work.

This was Mikko's (A) advice, too. He suggested it was important to 'do something intrinsically important'.

Vivien (C) also encouraged people to start from the point of forming a question or identifying a gap. She said, 'Look, what is it that you’re looking to achieve from this?  What’s the outcome and for whom?' Her statement below indicates that while there was 'busy work' involved in developing the grant application, it may have benefited from a more focused effort to articulate the foundational aspects of the project idea and develop the application from there:  

So when I look at the unsuccessful one that was being led from elsewhere where they were trying to get two people from each uni in each state around the country. So it was a 'cast of thousands' kind of a project and because I was a very minor bit player in that one I didn't get too involved in the actual writing of the grant and my general impression of it was that they didn’t really know what they wanted to do. They knew who they wanted in it and which disciplines, but they didn't really know what they wanted to do.

In terms of identifying a gap or an area for a possible project Gerry (D) said, 'The best resources are the OLT website of previous grants. Avoid what has been done before unless it needs to be extended'. Sally (C) agreed, stating that people interested in developing an application should visit to the OLT website: 'They've got to go there and look at previous grants and do a good search to make sure it hasn't been previously done'. She also encouraged potential applicants to discuss their ideas with their department and faculty learning and teaching leaders, as well as any relevant dean of teaching professional bodies 'to see what they think'.

Collaboration

Key point from the data:

• Collaboration with individuals and groups is a feature of the life cycle of learning and teaching applications and projects. It is important during the formation of the project idea, the bringing together of the project team, the development of the application, and while the project work is being undertaken.

In Chapter 9: Do the work anyway, Bill (D) and Lisa (C) describe their experience with ‘the project before the project’, that is, pursuing preliminary educational projects either without funding or with some internal funding. Among other things, this gave them an opportunity to work with colleagues and get to know their strengths and limitations. Agnes (D), too, stressed the necessity to collaborate when she said, 'The collegiality is another thing in that I knew the people (across Australia) I was working with already and had a good relationship with them so that networking capacity. I just think that sharing, the team collaboration, is absolutely crucial to getting a good proposal together'.

Reflecting on one particular OLT application, Agnes (D) indicated that team members' different strengths complemented each other and this led to a competitive proposal:

(My colleague) and I work extremely well together. (They have) got the most amazing brain that you could ever think of … very philosophical … but also very analytical … and mathematical. Whereas I've got a very ordered, rational brain. So together we came up with a really strong proposal.

Mikko (A) had good advice about internal and external collaboration from his experience in a smaller institution:

In small higher education providers the networks and connections their leaders have with other similar institutions form an important enabling mechanism for getting projects under way. So people contemplating projects that seek to access OLT funding in such institutions should connect with their institutional leadership at the earliest possible stage ... Seek multiple levels of support for long-term projects to develop ideas of lasting value, such as from colleagues, internal grants (if they exist), professional associations, discipline networks, e.g. deans groups in particular disciplines, philanthropic sources, and the industry most closely associated with your teaching and research area.

Also see Chapter 4: Building the project team.

A different sort of grant

Key points from the data:

• OLT grants are OLT grants. They have their own particular characteristics and requirements. Applicants need to be familiar with the nature of the funding body and its grants programmes.
• Approaching an OLT grant application as if it was, for example, an Australian Research Council (ARC) grant application, can be like 'trying to fit a square peg in a round hole'.

A theme to emerge from the interview data concerned the specific nature of learning and teaching grants offered by the Office for Learning and Teaching and how this needs to be taken into account when thinking about a possible project and developing an application. Interviewees made comparisons between OLT grants and those offered by other funding bodies, particularly the Australian Research Council (ARC) grants and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) grants, the 'funding mainstays' of many discipline-based academics in Australian higher education.

One distinction made by interviewees was based on an impression that OLT grants were focussed on learning and teaching in an applied sense while ARC and NHMRC grants were, according to Sam (D), for example, about conducting 'research research'. In this, according to Sally (C), there were both opportunities and challenges. Both Sally (C) and Vivien (C) indicated that while having a track record was vital in ARC and NHMRC grants, this has traditionally been less of a feature of OLT grants. Vivien (C) thought that good ideas have been funded by OLT regardless of an applicant's level of experience or track record. However, this did not mean that it was 'money for jam':

Compared to say, NHMRC/ARC where they’re seen in the context of careers and career progression, and you need track records and things like that, OLT have been good in that you could kind of parachute in as a fairly inexperienced person.  I question how likely that is to continue. I hope it does a bit, and you’ll get better changes in teaching if you let new blood in more frequently. But the flip side to that is that people can think that 'I can just parachute in' and not do any homework and you can't. You still need to do your homework and your apprenticeship a little bit.

It should be noted that success in OLT programmes (grants, awards and fellowships) can also be seen in the context of careers and career progression, particularly—but not exclusively—for teaching academics. The recent classification of OLT grant funding as Category 1 research funding may help in this regard. In addition, it is anticipated that success in OLT programmes will be an important element for promotion for staff in teaching academic profiles.

Sally (C) raised and interesting point when she said that her performance as a discipline-based academic was judged on 'hard research outputs' like publications in A or A star journals that arose from ARC-type grants. This currency, while valued by OLT, was not necessarily the measure of success for an OLT project. She said that in her experience, the OLT were 'just as happy with an applied publication'.

The track record in ARC-type grants equated to an 'expert voice' according to Sally (C). She commented, 'In ARC you are recognised as the expert and therefore they're giving you guidance in terms of how you make your application better … write it better. But they assume your content is OK. Whereas with OLT we tend more to attack the content as well as how it's written'. Sally's (C) reflection was driven by her experience with the internal review processes for OLT applications at her university. She commented that the level of commentary and questioning of the project idea and methodology was much greater for her OLT applications than it was for her ARC applications.

It may be the case that the perceived applied nature of grants funded by OLT (and its predecessors) takes some getting used to by staff who are more familiar with ARC and NHMRC grants. For example, Sam (D) observes:    

With the ARCs … we have to get all that help within the faculty, so a professor who has had 100s of ARCs goes through it and we have this vetting process so that kind of intellectual work gets done throughout the faculty … whereas with the OLT ones because they are not 'research research' they are about teaching and learning and impact and those things, I am not sure where I would have got that advice from without the (OLT grants team) … because we don’t do that … I had no idea.  For the OLT grants you need a different type of help that you wouldn’t necessarily get from within the faculty.

It is likely there are at least two issues at play here. The first is about applicants' understandings of the funding body and its aims. The second is about understanding the nature of OLT projects in terms of what they are supposed be, do and achieve. Without these understandings, it could be that some staff who apply for OLT grants are trying to 'fit a square peg into a round hole' by applying their experiences with different funding bodies to OLT grants. A hint of this is portrayed in Sam's thoughts on what he thought was a key difference between ARC-type grants and OLT learning and teaching grants:

OLT projects are not research projects … I get all of that but obviously we are coming at it wanting to do some valuable academic work as well so there is theory smuggled in, there is empirical evidence which we might use in a research way, but that is not what you necessarily put in the forefront when you put your proposal in. It is little things like that that you learn at the time … Both my projects, even the seed one which is not that huge, are both theoretically quite interesting and are leading to things which will be really useful in the future and in a research sense as well as a kind of practical teaching and learning practice as well.

Note that sound theoretical bases are important to demonstrate in OLT grant applications. Note also that empirical evidence is valued in OLT projects when establishing the nature of current practice as well as the efficacy of any learning and teaching interventions and innovations. Again, it is important for applicants to understanding the funding body and its aims and also understand what OLT projects are supposed be, do and achieve.

Do the work anyway!

Key points from the data:

• Undertaking unfunded or internally-funded project work prior to applying for OLT grants can provide aspiring OLT grant applicants with experience in, for example, forming a team, working with people, fleshing out an idea, applying for ethics clearances, building a body of evidence, managing a budget and running a learning and teaching project.
• Applying to OLT for funding on the basis of having completed 'pilot work' in learning and teaching may be advantageous. 

In the section titled Building the project team, Bill (D-size institution) spoke about the importance of 'the project before the project'. He encouraged people to pursue their good ideas with or without funding, believing that this was beneficial for a number of reasons in the lead up to applying for an OLT grant. For example, it gave team members an opportunity to work with each other and recognise each other’s strengths. It also meant that the OLT application could point to 'runs on the board' in terms of established evidence and efficacy of the original work in relation to the proposed OLT project. Bill (D) summarised it like this:    

Because you continue to develop your thinking, develop, fine tune things, continue to sort of grow the team or see things. So keep things ticking over. It has always been important that … the research skill development work can be sustained without money anyway. And the money is just there to do whatever we would be doing, maybe at a better level of evaluation or research orientated approach to it.

In Bill's (D) case, the work he did in the unfunded or internally-funded project work meant that he had a data set from the students who participated in the project. For the OLT project, he could follow the now-graduated students into the workplace to further explore the outcomes of the original project and to improve on his educational model. This approach, he suggested, made his OLT application more compelling. He said, 'It actually meant that from quite early on we could interview students who are graduates of programs'.

Lucy (C), too, referred to the benefit of going to OLT with pilot work having been carried out:

I'd done some research at the same time with this colleagues, so for a year we'd already been collecting focus group data, we'd done a pilot, we'd presented a paper, we'd written a paper. So we had a bit of, you know, done a bit of pilot work.

Mikko (A) offered similar advice in saying, 'When you have some initial runs on the board, apply for an OLT grant with a team that you already know well and who are able and willing to work together'.

The accounts offered by Bill (D), Lucy (C) and Mikko (A) suggest that 'doing the work anyway' offers some clear advantages for aspiring OLT grant applicants.

Successful applications and completed projects

Key points from the data:

• Examples of previously successful grant applications are very instructive for applicants because they provide an immediate sense of structure, form and the level at which an idea might be pitched to result in success.
• Looking at other peoples' current or completed projects can provide applicants with a wide range of information, for example, the topic area, team size and composition, project aims, deliverables and dissemination activities.  

Exemplar applications

Seven out of 10 interviewees commented on the usefulness of viewing exemplar applications to provide them with an idea of the characteristics of a successful application. This familiarised them with the nature of the document, for example, length, format, the 'pitch’, budget, its scholarly engagement, appendices and so on. Mikko (A-size institution) encouraged applicants to 'utilise examples of existing successful research grants as models for developing your grant applications'. Sally (C) indicated, 'If I know someone who has written a recent application, I ask them if I can have a look at it so that I know what they’re (the funding body/assessors) looking for'. Gerry (D) said that viewing previously successful applications provided 'an insight into which parts of the application required what level of detail'. Vivien (C) recommended that applicants to 'read as many previous successful grant applications as you can'. Gerry (D) said he met with centrally-located staff who could 'walk through examples'. Trevor (D) had strong views on this when asked for his advice for prospective applicants:

I'd say (see) examples of grants that got up. That is really good and it is really weird. Each institution seems to have a different culture around the sharing of those. (Mine) is very open and I really think that is great. I have had colleagues at other institutions who can't get a winning grant from their institution. They can't see an example of this thing being done well. How are you supposed to write one if you have never seen one? I think the OLT should actually provide some. I just think that would be great. It is not in the OLT's interest to have people write crappy grants, so I think examples (are useful).

Chris (C) came at this from a slightly different angle, saying that support he had received at his institution included seeing exemplars, plus having 'central' staff working with him who made suggestions on the basis of having 'seen a number of applications'.

Completed projects

Although Lucy (C) was the only interviewee to suggest that looking at other peoples' current or completed projects was useful in helping her get an idea of how to develop her applications, the suggestion is eminently sensible. She said, 'It's really good to look at other peoples’ projects to see what has been successful and see what their outputs are … looking at ones that you think are good or not so good is both useful'. The OLT website is a repository for a significant number of completed project reports and associated web resources. Selectively choosing a number of them will inform applicants of a range of project characteristics, for example, the number of project partners, dissemination strategies, budget, timeline, project focus, deliverables and outcomes.

Familiarity with what is expected

Key points from the data:

• It is critical that applicants become familiar with the funding body and what is expected in applications and of projects.
• It is important that applicants demonstrate correct understanding and application of terminology in their applications, for example, outcomes and deliverables, approach, dissemination and impact. (See the Glossary for a range of general and specific words and terms associated with OLT grants and projects.)
• When it comes to developing an understanding of OLT and what is required and expected in applications and projects, applicants should take advantage of the knowledge and experience of any centrally-located or faculty-based staff who work in the area.

In Chapter 8: A different sort of grant it is stressed that OLT grant applicants need to understand both the funding body and its aims and also the nature of OLT projects in terms of what they are supposed be, do and achieve. Without this, some applicants may end up trying to ‘fit a square peg into a round hole’. Eight interviewees urged prospective applicants to become familiar with what is expected. Gerry (D-size institution) thought it was critical from the outset for applications to align with the funding body's aims. Sam (D) said, 'in terms of actually pitching these (applications), do whatever it is that you think OLT want, rather than what you want'. Agnes (D) urged applicants to 'become familiar with what's required in the proposal'.

People need to understand what the OLT is looking for and the big area where I see people fall down with OLT grants is they put in research grant applications, ARC type things, and it’s not what the OLT is about ... they’re (OLT) your client, you have to fit what they need. (Vivien [C])

Chris (C) was new to applying for OLT grants. He said, 'I wasn’t used to terms like 'engaged dissemination' and how that might play out in an application'. Sally’s (C) advice was to 'always have (OLT's) checklist. Always look at the guidelines for the criteria it will be assessed against. Also, too, the sections they want in the application'. She continued, 'I go to their (OLT) site. I use their handbook, you know, their criteria sheet. Aims and scope, whatever their headings are'. Sally indicated that without doing this, an applicant might misinterpret what is required:

What they (OLT) mean by dissemination might be different to what a (Sally's discipline) research project would mean by dissemination … Rationale, aims and scope and theoretical framework to me all seem to cover the same stuff. And you've got to dissect them and make them different.

Trevor (D) concurred, suggesting that applicants 'make it OLT friendly, and there I am thinking particularly about the outputs, outcomes, deliverable side of things'.

Lucy (C), too, made an effort to understand what was valued by the funding body and how this could be demonstrated in an application:

I think I understand what the OLT needs. I worked really hard from the beginning at dissemination, which I know they care about. I care very much about not just having a theoretical resource, but you know, lots of learning and teaching resources that can be used and adapted across the sector. Like, I feel I've got a handle on that.

A number of interviewees indicated that the 'doing' in itself resulted in experience. That is, developing and submitting proposals and receiving feedback from OLT was beneficial even if success was not immediately forthcoming. Agnes (D) felt she had made the transition from the uncertainty of a beginner to being more experienced and hence confident:

I feel comfortable and confident in that space now whereas when it was all new and foreign … I guess I couldn't connect with it quite as well. Now, I’ve got a lot out of it because … my head is in that space. I can sit and listen and work out where it all fits. I know exactly how we would frame up the impact (even though) we're not even writing (the application) for another year or two. Whereas, if I'd … had that conversation four years ago, I couldn't have articulated that.

Sam's (D) reflections are a timely reminder that the applicant does not have to work in isolation to understand the funding body and the grant application requirements. A similar sentiment is clearly expressed in Chapter 5: Centralised assistance. Sam (D) said:

There was a fairly good understanding of what would be successful and what wouldn't be so there was a lot of institutional knowledge about what the OLT want, and this is what will fly and this is what won’t work and this is the mistake that has been made before … It was nice to have a central unit of people who you knew by name who knew what should be done and were able to actually be fairly critical friends rather than pushing things through … It is the tacit stuff of knowing the rules of the game. Everybody knows what ARC are about because everybody applies to them but not many people are that cluey when it comes to OLT. So having the (central) team around is great.

For Mikko (A), keeping in touch with the local PEN (Promoting Excellence Network) was a way to keep in touch with developments at other institutions and enabled him to 'develop good relationships with various OLT staff members'. This was in light of his small institution having no centralised assistance. 

Find a mentor

Key points from the data:

• Working with a mentor may be very beneficial for applicants.
• Applicants should realise it is they who must 'do the work'; not the mentor!

While Agnes (D-size institution) was the only interviewee to mention the benefit of having a mentor to discuss ideas for learning and teaching in general or with a particular project in mind, it is an important recommendation. She said, 'Have some specific questions, some specific ideas and a framework' and approach someone for a discussion about mentoring.

I've always, in my life, had some fabulous mentors ... I had a couple of them here at that time and I've always been a person to consult with my mentors and listen to them, their expertise. At the time, of course, I've gleaned their expertise but then there's other people you can learn from about different things.

Agnes (D) said it was important to understand the different roles of the mentor and mentee:

The applicant needs to put in a lot of energy and time into thinking about, with their own frame of mind and their own space because I think sometimes there's an expectation that a mentor or someone in that (role) is going to sit down and edit and write and pull it together. They're not and you've got to own it as well to be able to execute it.

Internal funding

Data from the online questionnaire show that 25 of the 35 institutions which participated in this project offer internal learning and teaching grants (see the questionnaire section titled Internal grant funding). Three interviewees commented on the usefulness of internal funding in laying the foundation for an OLT application. Also see the section titled Do the work anyway!.

Mikko (A-size institution) suggested that internal funding could be a good way to develop networks and collaborative teams with colleagues to pursue research and development ideas. Similarly, Bill (D) used some internal funding 'to start to build teams, start to talk with people'. In Vivien's (C) experience, internal funding provided 'a feel for what is doable and give you some runs on the board of actually running a learning and teach project. So I had a few of those before going OLT'.

Internal review feedback

Key points from the data:

• Feedback from internal review panels to applicants on their applications can be formative (e.g. 'Here are some suggestions for improvement') and/or summative (e.g. 'The panel will/will not be recommending for your application to be endorsed').
• For applicants, feedback on grant applications should be approached in the same way as feedback gained from any other scholarly endeavour which has undergone a peer review process. There are disappointments and successes. See in particular the section titled Patience, perseverance and resilience. 
• Internal review panels should have a clear understanding of their role and the level of feedback they provide to applicants. Among other things, when is it appropriate to address spelling and grammar?

In the sections titled Centralised assistance and Familiarity with what is expected, a number of interviewees reflected on the usefulness of assistance they had received from professional and academic staff at their institutions, for example, information about OLT as a funding body and what is required in applications. This section narrows the focus to interviewees’ experiences with formative and summative feedback processes at their institutions.

Data from the online questionnaire indicate that internal review processes are reasonably common across the sector, especially in the larger institutions. Many have a summative aspect, that is, they either endorse an application to be lodged with OLT or they hold it back, generally because it is ascertained it needs more work to be competitive. Perhaps related to this is a sense of 'institutional reputation' in only submitting applications that are judged as being 'competitive'.

Gerry (D) indicated that he had benefitted from meeting with 'people who review such applications'. Trevor (D) commented that his application went through his institution's internal processes and this resulted in him receiving useful feedback. Lucy's (C) experience with the internal review process at her institution, however, was evidently challenging and this raises the interesting issue of whether the internal review is fundamentally a gatekeeping or facilitating process, or indeed both. Lucy's (C) experience over a period of time and with several applications is outlined below:

My team and I … really worked on it over a period of many months (and) went back and forth to the committee … they kept saying, 'No, it wasn't good enough'. We just kept persevering and with every bit of feedback got, we just kept revising and revising.  We finally put it in … I can't tell you how many iterations … a huge number, in our group, trying to respond, and finally it went before the committee and they again said, 'We don't think it's ready' … I feel like they are a gatekeeper that are there to stop you and if you can somehow get it through you've, like, won the lottery.

While Lucy (C) was ultimately successful in winning several OLT grants in different grant categories, she had been exasperated with what she described as the pedantic approach of the internal review process, dating from her early her days of applying for OLT grants. Lucy (C) recalled two examples which were frustrating for her. Firstly, she missed the submission deadline for internal review and when she asked the chair of the review panel for some leniency, they refused. Lucy (C) said, 'But look, it's still a month before the (Expression of Interest) is due at the ALTC' to which the response was, 'No, you should have been watching (for the internal deadline)'.

The second frustration expressed by Lucy (C) concerned editorial feedback. She said, 'The pedantic focus on editing down to commas and full stops and style, as if someone in the (central unit/panel) somehow has ownership of that. As if we cannot write. I find that offensive.  That's least helpful.' On this point, recall Sally's (C) comment in the section titled A different sort of grant where she observed that for ARC grants, authors are recognised as the experts and it is assumed that the content is fine, whereas 'with OLT we tend more to attack the content as well as how it’s written'.

Lucy (C) raises some important issues for both applicants and internal review panels to consider. For applicants, see in particular the section titled Patience, perseverance and resilience. For internal review panels, it is worth reflecting on the explicit function and role of the panel. Is it as a facilitator or a gatekeeper or both? What do these terms mean in practice? How do other institutions approach this?

Leadership

Key point from the data:

• Leadership is an inherent aspect and requirement of a grant applicant's application development and project-related endeavours. 

Given the interviewees were all the principal instigators of the ideas for their learning and teaching projects and authors of their applications, the interview data as a whole naturally speak to the idea of leadership. Most, if not all, sections and themes that have been developed from the interview data are rich with descriptions of leadership. While there is no need to reiterate volumes of information here to demonstrate this, the following observations crystallise the notion of leadership and how it is expressed in national learning and teaching grant applications.

In the section titled Find a mentor, Agnes (D-size institution) indicated that the person who was developing the project idea needed to 'do the work'. She said, 'One person needs to take the leadership for … pulling the application together … Listen to everybody, everyone, we all did edits and all of those sorts of things and consulted but then (name withheld) sat down and pulled it all together so that it was nice, streamlined and coherent'. Chris (C) expressed the same sentiment when he mentioned, 'One person does the hard work'. Mikko (A) said he 'had a good idea, and ... went ahead with a project application, inviting the people/institutions I felt could be of good value for the project, to participate. In these cases I had to do most of the work in project design, team formation, and project application'.

Partnering on a project led by another institution

Key point from the data:

• One way to learn about OLT project work, team dynamics, OLT-specific terminology and expectations, and the operationalisation of budgets is to be involved as a partner.

While reflecting on advice for prospective applicants about developing their own project idea, Mikko (A-size institution) also spoke about partnering on a project led by another institution:

Work in the areas of your greatest expertise, and in areas that motivate you to the greatest extent, so long as they fit the OLT priorities, unless you are asked to be an institutional representative for your institution or department for an interesting project that someone else is developing. Also join such teams if the projects are of value to you and your institution. You will learn plenty from such activities.

Mikko (A) elaborated on what he could bring to the project in his capacity as a partner institution team member:

I had less depth of expertise in the specific areas being investigated, and I felt I was unable to take leadership in those areas or to contribute as significantly to the project formulation as in the areas of my expertise and experience. However, I was able to contribute educational research expertise, and bring to bear substantial general grounding in higher education scholarship and research, experience in developing and conducting higher education level investigation projects, and working with teams researching and developing improved teaching and learning principles and practices across disciplines from my professional work at various universities.

Patience, perserverence and resilience

Key points from the data:

• Stories of success in winning grants are often characterised by journeys punctuated with setbacks and failure.
• Applicants should approach the development of a grant application in the same way they approach other scholarly academic undertakings, for example, writing a journal article.
• Be prepared to map out a medium- to long-term plan.  

The grant application experiences of Bill (D-size institution), Gerry (D), Lucy (C) and Mikko (A) emphasise the importance and place of patience and resilience in the grant application process. All staff interviewed in this project had experienced success in winning national learning and teaching grants with the exception of Chris (C) whose first and only application so far had been unsuccessful. Nevertheless, those who had experienced success also had to come to grips with disappointment. Gerry's (D) advice was for applicants to have 'patience, having the fortitude and drive to pursue a multi-year plan'.

Bill's journey (D) was one of success punctuated by failure. He had submitted two applications to OLT (then the Carrick Institute) in 2007 which were successful. Towards the end of those projects he submitted another application which was unsuccessful. A year later he submitted yet another Innovation and Development grant application which was also unsuccessful. Then, in 2011, he submitted a subsequent Innovation and Development grant application which was successful. Mikko (A), too, had 'applied for a number of OLT grants ... with a mixture of success and failure'.

In the section titled Internal review feedback Lucy's (C) frustration with the internal review process at her institution was apparent. She said, 'We spent two years really working hard and learning a great deal about how to work across universities and across disciplines' yet she felt as though she and her team were held back by the internal review processes at her institution. Her thoughts related below are a testament to her patience, resilience and belief that perseverance and hard work will ultimately pay dividends:

Be resilient, don't take 'No' for answer, don't feel like you're a failure because (the internal processes at your institution) won't let you through, just keep plodding along. You know, it's like revisions for a journal article, we all are familiar with that, you know.  Revise and resubmits, they kill you, you know, it's horrible. Don't be dejected by that. Just keep saying, 'The product will be better in the end' … develop a thick skin, and believe in your own work … be tenacious, be resilient, look at other sites, work with the OLT, be prepared to stand up for your work.

This is really good advice!