3. Question:
The review process
Initial sift/outline stage in some calls
Reviews received (with or without right of reply)
Often including reviewers outside sub-discipline
and practitioners
PI response
Panel discussion
Ranking
Decision
4. Question:
Strategic tips
Choose your call (check you REALLY fit the scope)
Decide whether to lead or follow (and who to follow)
Head-hunt WP leads with funder track record and strong
stakeholder partnerships (not just expertise/publications)
Scope panelists, get pre-reviewers
Build concept notes, teams and long-term partnerships in
fundable areas before calls come out
Systematically map research in your institution in these
areas to build cross-disciplinary teams
Map previous projects (especially from your target funder)
in the same locations/topics
Identify stakeholders and non-academic project partners
and engage in question setting if you want to co-produce
your research
5. Who has a stake in my research?
1. Who might benefit from the
impacts in the call? Reach
out to key groups early
2. What are their interests and
needs? Co-produce
additional impact goals
3. How will you enable each
identified group to benefit
from each impact goal? Link
activities to impact goals
and beneficiaries
Bid writing tools for co-production
7. Read and discuss
Quick overview
Discuss example proposals in break-out rooms
Key ingredients to integrate
Different ways of integrating
So how do you do it?
8. Read and discuss
What is the challenge
or opportunity in the
world?
Who would benefit
beyond the academy
and what would be
the significance and
reach?
Problem
statement and/or
beneficiaries
What is the research
challenge or
opportunity?
What is original and
significant for
researchers in my
discipline and beyond?
Impact
goals
Research
questions
and goals
Pathways
Methods
Impacts
Research
outputs
Work plan
Goals Activities
Outputs and
impacts
9. Who has a stake in my research?
1. Individually scan/read the
two bids
2. Move to your break-out
room
3. Join the discussion when
you are ready
What do you like about how the
different bids integrate impact?
Different approaches to integration
Break
out
10. Who has a stake in my research?
Which integration approach did
you like better?
1. ESRC Centre
2. GCRF Forest Network
Vote
now
Different approaches to integration
11. Who has a stake in my research?
What good practice features did
you find in both bids?
What would you avoid or do
better?
Comment
in chat
Different approaches to integration
12. Specificity = credibility
Make your impacts measurable (e.g. using indicators)
Save a page by referring to objectives section (not
repeating) and using academic beneficiaries to
summarise originality and significance
Use tables, formatting and diagrams to highlight
impact and show links between research, pathways
and impact
Map (and fix) links between problem statement,
impact goals, beneficiaries and activities…
Evaluating Impact
Key points
13. Read and discuss
Impact goals
Impact Map
Beneficiaries
Activities
Impact 1
Impact 2
Impact 3
Beneficiary group 1
Beneficiary group 2
Applied
research
Engagement
activity
Engagement
activity
Beneficiary group 3 ?
Engagement
activity
Impact 4
Engagement
Activity
Problem statement
Research
Research
14. Read and discuss
Impact goals Beneficiaries
Activities
Problem statement
Risks Risks
Impact Map
15. Multi-actor advisory panels
per country/site
International advisory
panels
Local facilitators
Science shops
Citizen science
Science cafes
Social media strategy
Commercialisation activities
Evaluating Impact
Impact mechanisms
Engagement training
Secondments/shadowing
Boundary organisations e.g.
policy academy or hub with
activities programme
Rapid evidence synthesis
training/writing workshops
Knowledge exchange
seminar series with
stakeholders
Capacity building training
swaps with stakeholders