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.