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.
| Internal assessment / Institution size |
A-size |
B-size |
C-size |
D-size |
Totals |
|
Yes, a person does this |
1 of 9 |
3 of 8 |
3 of 7 |
5 of 11 |
12 of 35 |
|
Yes, a panel/committee does this |
5 of 9 |
5 of 8 |
3 of 7 |
5 of 11 |
18 of 35 |
|
No person or panel/committee does this |
3 of 9 |
0 of 8 |
1 of 7 |
1 of 11 |
5 of 35 |
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.