The document provides an overview of the research commissioning process from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. It discusses the key elements of a successful research proposal, including clearly demonstrating how the proposed research addresses the specific call, advances existing knowledge, and is methodologically rigorous. It emphasizes the importance of assembling the right team and planning the project realistically. The pathways to impact section is identified as an opportunity to show non-academic users have been considered. Key recommendations include identifying actual and potential users, securing support from partners, and outlining pragmatic engagement and communication tools. Coherence and evidence of involvement from named organizations is important.

1. Perspectives on research funding:
the why, what and how of commissioning
excellence with impact
Melanie Knetsch, Nina Marshall and Lauren Winch (ESRC),
with Frank Hardman (University ofYork)

2. Welcome and overview
Session aim: to explore the research commissioning
process from multiple perspectives, with time to reflect
on barriers and how they can be overcome
Session structure:
– Part 1: A (brief) orientation overview of ESRC research
commissioning processes: the lifecycle of a proposal and
key points on applications, assessment and decision-making
– Part 2: Focus in on key elements of successful proposals –
case for support and pathways to impact – as well as
barriers to success in these
– Final Q&A

3. Part 1: A (brief) orientation overview
of ESRC research commissioning
processes

4. ▶ Bitesize orientation not a detailed how-to guide
▶ Overview of the lifecycle of a proposal, with focus on:
▪ The proposal writing stage
▪ Peer review and feedback
▪ Decision points
▶ Based on a generic process – specifics will differ between calls,
particularly where other funders are involved/ leading
▶ Illustrates how ESRC core values – quality, impact,
independence – drive our processes
▶ Helps understand how different roles in the process you
might undertake fit together
Lifecycle of a Proposal

5. Applicant
writes proposal
Office Checks
Office Reject
Reviewer Reject
Reviewer
Selection/Invitation
Peer Review comments
and scores received and
anonymised
PI Response to reviewer comments
Commissioning Panel
member selection/
proposal allocation
Proposal returned to
PI for minor
amendment
Application unsuccessful
Commissioning
Panel Meeting
Application
successful
Detailed checks
undertaken by ESRC
on proposal,
including costings
Contract issued
Proposal
submitted via Je-S
– Joint Electronic
Submission system
Grant starts
Funding
opportunity
available

6. Focus on: the proposal writing stage
▶ UK research councils use the Joint Electronic
Submission System – Je-S
▶ Some information is entered into Je-S directly,
and other parts of proposals are uploaded as
PDF attachments
▶ All parts of proposals are assessed – we don’t
ask for what we don’t use
▶ Call specific guidance is provided covering core
requirements, FAQs etc. as well as Je-S, call
spec
▶ The Je-S helpdesk deals with technical queries,
and ESRC contact staff respond to other
queries
▶ Supplementary briefings may be provided – e.g.
webinars, launch events, town halls etc.
▶ Research organisations may also offer support
▶
Further info for prospective
applicants:
www.esrc.ac.uk/funding/gui
dance-for-applicants/

7. Focus on: peer review
▶ Anonymous academic review of
proposals by (global) peers
▶ Some calls also involve non academic
peer review
▶ Peer reviewers are selected for their
relevant expertise
▶ May be members of ESRC peer review
college, or identified specifically
▶ Reviewer conflicts of interest are
actively managed
▶ Score (1-6) and comment on proposals
against call-specific criteria
▶ Source of constructive feedback,
whatever the outcome
▶ Can be a lengthy process to secure
sufficient suitable reviewers
Further info on peer review:
www.esrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance
-for-peer-reviewers/
Peer review training tool:
http://peerreviewtraining.esrc.ac.u
k/

8. Focus on: decision points
▶ Commissioning panel made up of both
academics and non academics/ potential
research users, with independent chair
▶ Members selected for high level
expertise in relevant fields to the call
▶ Some standing panels, some call specific
▶ Provide assessments of proposals,
including score (1-10) and comments:
based on access to full proposal,
previous reviews and PI response
▶ Meet to discuss proposals and make
funding recommendations – can add
conditions
▶ Detailed checks follow including
costings and eligibility to hold funds

9. Part 2: Key elements for success: Case
for Support and Pathways to Impact

10. What are these?
▶ Two key ‘documents’ that form part of your proposal
▶ Case for support: where you set out the main body of your
research proposal, covering its significant features, including:
▪ the research aims/ objectives, set in context
▪ research questions, analytical framework and methods
▪ partnerships, collaborations, linkages, capacity building
▶ Pathways to impact: where you explain what you will do to
maximise the opportunities for non-academic research users to
benefit from your research, including:
– Mapping of beneficiaries/ targets, and analysis of demand
– Strategy for engaging audiences, and methods of communication/ engagement
▶ Different length restrictions for each, depending on call - check
the call specific guidance!

11. Why do they matter?
▶ They are the space where you show your/team
research idea and how you will make it work
▶ They are key to answering key assessment questions:
– What are your objectives for the research: what scientific
contribution and socio-economic impact will it have?
– How well are you ‘matched’ against the specification?
– How well thought out is your project?
– Have you thought of the value of your research beyond
academia (and how to make this happen)?

12. One view from multiple perspectives
Professor Frank Hardman, University of York:
Former chair of a commissioning panel, current
grantholder, and ESRC peer reviewer

13. Over to you…
What are the key elements that you think would be
important to include in:
a) any Case for support
b) Pathways to impact attachment
Why do these matter
and what is critical to include?

14. Other perspectives:
What the evidence shows
▶ Clearly respond to the specific call
Read the project call carefully. Ensure you really spell out how you are addressing
this call, what is novel and important about your proposal in terms of answering
the call - and why you are the right team to develop this work.
Adopt the language of the call for proposals, and explicitly make the case that your
project addresses this particular call […] you need to explicitly justify the
relevance of your approach to the call at hand. Don't just send a generic project
description.
Make sure your application is directly and explicitly related to the theme. Too many
applications looked like applicants interests rebadged for the [call] by adding
[call] key words to their prior interests.
Case for support – demonstrate fit to call

15. ▶ Show how your project responds and adds to existing knowledge
The award is for excellent new research[…] and not for the best roll out in practice of
an old idea that might have lots of positive impact […] Situate your proposal in the
literature and make clear where it will add value
Specify the rationale for the investigation very clearly and succinctly drawing out what is
to be found out through this study that could not be found out any other way.
Pay good attention to local contextualisation. This needs to comprise what has been
written about the issues you aim to research in the country where your work will take
place, very importantly taking account of local scholarship and debate
▶ Demonstrate rigor and robustness in methods
Fully thinking through your proposed methodology (and being able to justify the
approach you intend to take) is absolutely crucial.
Many proposals from very qualified researchers spent a lot of time on motivation and
the broad ambitions of the project, without explaining the nuts and bolts of the
research activities to be funded. Basic information on sample sizes, how key concepts
will be measured, etc., can lend a lot of credibility to a proposal.
Case for support – demonstrate excellence

16. ▶ Assemble/plan for a team with the right combination of skills
What can your team realistically manage from your current skills set? Are there skills
gaps that you will need to fill to make the project work? If so, do you have a realistic
plan to get them in place pre-project or at an early stage?
▶ Plan and cost realistically
Be realistic in choosing the number of case studies you will examine. Choosing too many
in your proposal will be spreading yourself too thin and not result in high quality work.
[…] consider how the conditions in that country during the proposed period of
investigation will colour strategies of data collection, analysis, and pathways to impact.
Give ample time to costing your research plan [realistically], including careful calculation
of how much time you will need from individual proposal collaborators to successfully
complete all components of the project.
A detailed focus on expenditures is always beneficial. Readers like to see that the
project will deliver value for money, which means that some winning proposals may
not be asking for anywhere close to the full amount of money available to them.
Other key advice

17. Pathways to impact – your chance to
show that you have thought about this
▶ Coherence, evidence users have been identified (actual
and potential) and how to access them
Early involvement of [named] partner organisations and co-researchers is key…
The applicants have therefore already established contact with gatekeepers, or
facilitators… they are keen to be involved….
▶ Evidence of secured support/involvement; method of
this; and how it meets their needs [why them?] e.g.
partnership agreement; existing relationships; involved in
writing case for support; consultation model; etc
A provisional intellectual property agreement has been set up with the
[business/NGO] collaborators
[organisations] have agreed to form the project steering group

18. Pathways to impact - pragmatic
▶ Additional partnerships that will be sought if
successful
partnerships with other [eg service industries] will be pursued, initially focussing on
[names] through [existing relationships; new contacts; seek advice from
colleagues/university]
▶ Tools to engage or communicate
To be able to reach those outside of academia who might benefit from our work we
will need to do more than publish in academic journals and present at academic
conferences. We will employ a number of strategies to raise the probability
that our work will impact directly outside the academic community. These
include….
▶ Evidence of costs thought out (at least 10%)
However, £xxx just over X% of the budget, has been allocated for specific impact activities.
These include….

19. Pathways to impact - flexibility
▶ These will not be fixed – shows your thinking/planning
▶ This forms a basis – good practice to keep going back
and reviewing it
▶ Impact is not linear
▶ Knowledge exchange is messy and complex
▶ Will always be unforeseen opportunities – but thinking
early one will help you recognised and respond
▶ If successful – then this forms the basis of your impact
strategy

20. Final thoughts and discussion
▶ Similarities or differences to your discussions?
▶ What makes it difficult to do these two documents?
▶ What can individuals and institutions do to overcome
these challenges?

21. Thank you!
Sources of follow-on information:
-Key ESRC resources list in conference pack
-ESRC website: www.esrc.ac.uk and
www.esrc.ac.uk/international-development
-Email: IDR@esrc.ac.uk