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.