Useful tips for applicants when writing a grant application Arts and Humanities Research Council

Introduction These Useful Tips have been collated by AHRC staff who deal with, and process, applications on a daily basis. Please note that when preparing an application, the notes should be read alongside the information in the Research Funding Guide and any relevant scheme guidance. If you have further questions when preparing an application, the AHRC website has details of staff who can be contacted for any queries that are not answered by the scheme guidance documents. For technical help in using Je-S, the dedicated Je-S help desk is available between 9am and 5pm, Monday to Friday, or telephone:

Top Tips read the Research Funding Guide read the call documents read the Terms and Conditions read any instructions you have been sent make sure you know what is being assessed. Academics and Research Officers are advised to read these before contacting the office, as AHRC staff then will be able to give a more tailored response to an enquiry.

Writing the application The proposal is an argument in shorthand. This shorthand should convey that: you understand the field of inquiry you have made a case for there being a lack of broader understanding or knowledge you have explained the significance of this lack you have shown how the research questions/problems follow from and, if answered/solved, will fill this lack you have a plan for answering the identified questions/problems you know what methods you will use and why they are appropriate you and your collaborators are well placed to undertake the work you are realistic about what is achievable within the timescale you understand how your idea sits in the context of that practice – both through your own work and that of others you have demonstrated what impact the research will have to society and the economy.

Technical Summary and Plan A Technical Plan should be provided for all applications where digital outputs or digital technologies are an essential part to the planned research outcomes. A digital output or digital technology is defined as an activity which involves the creation, gathering, collecting and/or processing of digital information. The Plans purpose is to demonstrate to the AHRC that technical provisions within a research proposal have been adequately addressed in terms of: (a) delivering the planned digital output or the digital technology from a practical and methodological perspective (b) doing so in a way which satisfies the AHRC's requirements for preservation and sustainability. It must be written as a single document and has a page limit of four pages. The level of detail provided should be proportionate to the envisaged value and importance of the proposed digital output or technology and to the cost of developing it.

Fellowships and Research Leadership In the Fellowships scheme applicants are required to make a compelling case for the enhancement of their research leadership role during the funding period, including individual research leadership activities. The Fellowship should include time allocated to working with others to develop the Fellows leadership role or leadership potential. The proposal should include a substantial programme of collaborative activities which support this leadership development, for example: research networking or other activities aimed at inspiring other researchers knowledge exchange activities international collaborations public engagement activities interdisciplinary engagement shadowing, placements or visiting roles supervision of a research assistant or other ways of supporting the development of other researchers working with others to produce collaborative outputs (co-authored/ edited publications, performances, exhibitions).

Early Career Researchers For Research Grant applications: In the Case for Support – statement of eligibility applicants should explain briefly how they meet the criteria for early career eligibility. Applicants are not eligible if they have already been a Principal Applicant/Investigator on an AHRC funded project (excluding RGPLA/Small Grants, Research Leave, Early Career Fellowships, Fellowships in Creative and Performing Arts, and the Research Networks and Workshops scheme). Applicants should also refer to Sections 1.2 and 3 in the Research Funding Guide. For Fellowships applications: A Mentor Statement from the RO must be attached. Applicants should also refer to Section in the Research Funding Guide.

DOs AND DONTs

Do… describe the issues, concerns and interests stimulating the work show that the issues, concerns and interests reflect cultural preoccupations show that the response to these stimulants and research question is likely to be culturally original make clear the relationship between the artifact(s) to be realised and those issues, concerns, and interests – what is the research focusing on? explain the projects originality indicate any knowledge, learning or insight likely to result from the programme of work provide an account of methodology that suggests a self-conscious, systematic and reflective practitioner state the idea as early as possible and explain why it needs to be tackled and estimate its impact - be bold.

Remind the reader what you have told them and tell them what you are going to tell them, in particular explain significance. Use simple language and language construction – not all your readers will be experts in the field. Think of all the reasons for attacking your proposal and rebuff them. Perhaps ask others for their perspective. Bear in mind the time it takes to read an application - if you write so the reviewer can get it in one go, you will be giving them more time to consider your proposal. Consider a Plan B to manage any risks associated with your research, if there are any – and tell the reviewers what it is. Demonstrate that you have the expertise and experience to take the work forward. Demonstrate what impact the research will have on society and the economy. Make clear to the reader what you want them to understand (and explain why). Do…

Dont… Assume the reader is an expert in the subject. Subject specialists will be chosen to review your proposal, but panel members, who will moderate batched proposals, may not be specialists. Have too many aims or objectives - the reader wont have time to stitch loads of objectives together with methodology, outcomes etc. Structure the proposal so that the reader has to wait to see the significance of something said earlier, e.g. dont explain how you are going to do something before saying why you want to do it. Use jargon. You need to make it easy for the reader (i.e. reviewer) to understand your idea and why it is important. Be over-ambitious – be realistic about what can be achieved within the time and with the resources requested.

Assessment As an applicant, it is essential that you understand how your application will be assessed. Please refer to Section 5 in the Research Funding Guide: Assessment Criteria and Peer Review which outlines this information. AHRC reviewers submit their reviews via Je-S. The form that they complete asks them to look at: quality and Importance people resources and Management outputs, Dissemination and Impact overall Assessment. Guidance for reviewers on completing these sections can be found the AHRC website and on Je-S. Applicants wishing to know more, please refer to the AHRC website or the Reviewer assessment section below. AHRC website on Je-S

The reviewers are asked by the AHRC to assess your application according to certain assessment criteria. It will help you in the application process if you understand what reviewers will be looking for and anticipate any questions they might have about your idea. They will be considering questions such as: How the proposal stands out? It needs to be a strong idea. How the research methods and stages of work will achieve your aims and objectives? (You will need to explain the connection). How the research sits in context? Not only with your own research and practice, but with other research conducted in the field. Why the research is important and how will it contribute to the field? Timescale – can you achieve your aims and objectives in the time you have planned? The reviewers - 1

Do you have the relevant skills to manage the project throughout its lifetime? Do you and any collaborators have the appropriate skills and experience to carry out the research successfully? What, if any, are the risks in doing this research? What activities have you put into place or are thinking about implementing to mitigate or manage them? Value for money – is the project too ambitious? Does it run the risk of not achieving all it sets out to do? Could the outputs be more innovative and creative? Have you justified what activities you are going to engage in and why they are important? Have you demonstrated the impact that the research will have on society and the economy? The reviewers - 2

Principal Investigator (PI) response - 1 For schemes for which there is a moderating panel, where applications pass the quality threshold (i.e. receive two or more reviews graded at 4, 5, or 6), the applicant will be invited to submit a PI response to the reviews and technical assessment, if applicable. This allows applicants to correct any factual errors or conceptual misunderstandings, or to respond to any queries highlighted in the comments from the reviewers. It is not intended to be an opportunity for the applicant to change or re-constitute a proposal in light of the comments. The reviewer form is anonymised to ensure that a reviewers identity and grades are not disclosed. Applicants are not obliged to submit a response, but are encouraged to do so as responses from applicants are forwarded to the peer review panel and are taken into account in the grading and ranking of proposals. If a response is not received from the PI within the period stated, then the application will proceed to the peer review panel without it.

If a PI considers that a response to a particular review or reviews is not required, please include a statement to this effect in your response. Dos and don'ts for PI Response: Dont… repeat reviewer comments re-write the application. Do… aim to keep language neutral in tone, even if you feel strongly about a reviewers comments focus on answering questions and addressing any issues raised by reviewers aim to be specific in your comments. Principal Investigator (PI)response - 2

Summary understand the overall funding context choose the right funding scheme for your research – make sure you and your proposed research meets the aims and criteria of that scheme and understand how your proposal will be assessed. the proposal is an argument in shorthand, it should provide a clear summary of your research - recognise that success is all about having an excellent project and communicating efficiently, not just effectively. refer to the Dos and Donts – top tips on what to do or not to do - when writing an application assessment – understand the process and how the reviewers will assess your application.