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'.