Internal review feedback

Key points from the data:

• Feedback from internal review panels to applicants on their applications can be formative (e.g. 'Here are some suggestions for improvement') and/or summative (e.g. 'The panel will/will not be recommending for your application to be endorsed').
• For applicants, feedback on grant applications should be approached in the same way as feedback gained from any other scholarly endeavour which has undergone a peer review process. There are disappointments and successes. See in particular the section titled Patience, perseverance and resilience. 
• Internal review panels should have a clear understanding of their role and the level of feedback they provide to applicants. Among other things, when is it appropriate to address spelling and grammar?

In the sections titled Centralised assistance and Familiarity with what is expected, a number of interviewees reflected on the usefulness of assistance they had received from professional and academic staff at their institutions, for example, information about OLT as a funding body and what is required in applications. This section narrows the focus to interviewees’ experiences with formative and summative feedback processes at their institutions.

Data from the online questionnaire indicate that internal review processes are reasonably common across the sector, especially in the larger institutions. Many have a summative aspect, that is, they either endorse an application to be lodged with OLT or they hold it back, generally because it is ascertained it needs more work to be competitive. Perhaps related to this is a sense of 'institutional reputation' in only submitting applications that are judged as being 'competitive'.

Gerry (D) indicated that he had benefitted from meeting with 'people who review such applications'. Trevor (D) commented that his application went through his institution's internal processes and this resulted in him receiving useful feedback. Lucy's (C) experience with the internal review process at her institution, however, was evidently challenging and this raises the interesting issue of whether the internal review is fundamentally a gatekeeping or facilitating process, or indeed both. Lucy's (C) experience over a period of time and with several applications is outlined below:

My team and I … really worked on it over a period of many months (and) went back and forth to the committee … they kept saying, 'No, it wasn't good enough'. We just kept persevering and with every bit of feedback got, we just kept revising and revising.  We finally put it in … I can't tell you how many iterations … a huge number, in our group, trying to respond, and finally it went before the committee and they again said, 'We don't think it's ready' … I feel like they are a gatekeeper that are there to stop you and if you can somehow get it through you've, like, won the lottery.

While Lucy (C) was ultimately successful in winning several OLT grants in different grant categories, she had been exasperated with what she described as the pedantic approach of the internal review process, dating from her early her days of applying for OLT grants. Lucy (C) recalled two examples which were frustrating for her. Firstly, she missed the submission deadline for internal review and when she asked the chair of the review panel for some leniency, they refused. Lucy (C) said, 'But look, it's still a month before the (Expression of Interest) is due at the ALTC' to which the response was, 'No, you should have been watching (for the internal deadline)'.

The second frustration expressed by Lucy (C) concerned editorial feedback. She said, 'The pedantic focus on editing down to commas and full stops and style, as if someone in the (central unit/panel) somehow has ownership of that. As if we cannot write. I find that offensive.  That's least helpful.' On this point, recall Sally's (C) comment in the section titled A different sort of grant where she observed that for ARC grants, authors are recognised as the experts and it is assumed that the content is fine, whereas 'with OLT we tend more to attack the content as well as how it’s written'.

Lucy (C) raises some important issues for both applicants and internal review panels to consider. For applicants, see in particular the section titled Patience, perseverance and resilience. For internal review panels, it is worth reflecting on the explicit function and role of the panel. Is it as a facilitator or a gatekeeper or both? What do these terms mean in practice? How do other institutions approach this?