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.