Thank you to everybody who applied to the first round of the Academy Ignition Fund. The deadline for applications was on Friday 23rd August 2024 and we received a lot of interest in our new scheme. We recently let applicants know whether they had been successful (with or without conditions) and the success rate for this round was 43%.
Applications were assessed on a range of criteria which were set out in the call guidelines and our general feedback for those who were unsuccessful is outlined below:
- In general, some applications were quite hard to read and included typographical errors and/or lacked clarity. Sometimes what the funds were being requested for was hard to discern – for example, discussing in detail the need for further research on a particular subject but then asking for funds for a conference place or a piece of equipment with no obvious justification. We would always advise asking others to review the final draft of your application, to pick up on these sorts of issues, before submitting it.
- We were looking for all sections of the application form to be completed fully and meaningfully. We appreciate that applicants will have several applications under review and use previously submitted work in new applications. However, the Ignition Fund is not a research project grant fund, and some applications provided answers that had clearly been derived from other applications and bore no relevance to the question being asked.
- The Ignition Fund is closely linked to the development of the Academy and as such awards need to reference how the award will further the aims of the Academy. The best applications not only provided a compelling justification of the need for the funds, but also demonstrated how the aims of the Academy would be addressed during it.
- When asked to describe how you would assess/evaluate the outcomes of the proposed activity, some applications provided statements with little detail. For example, some applications provided detailed information on what had been done before in other projects. In some cases, it may have been better to articulate outcomes on a smaller scale but which were realistic. Often what was required was a more detailed consideration of what the outcomes might be should the proposed research be successful.
- Often, we felt that applicants’ plans regarding patient, carer and/or public involvement and engagement (PPIE) could have been better structured. Several applications had conflated PPIE with research project participation. Applications need to be specific about whether the funding is for a PPIE group or to recruit participants on whom data will be collected. Applicants who are applying for PPIE may wish to consider reading the UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research, when drafting their application. In some cases it was unclear how / how often PPIE members would be engaged in the research, leading us to question whether the amount of funding requested for PPIE activities was appropriate and in-line with payment guidance.
- With regards to equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI), some applicants made quite generic statements and missed the opportunity to talk more specifically about how these matters would be reflected in their research and approach. In particular, a number of proposals stated a commitment to ensuring diverse and inclusive recruitment of participants, but lacked information on the mechanisms through which this would be achieved and/or whether the proposed team had the appropriate expertise to achieve this. A number of applications also made reference to having diverse / inclusive PPIE groups but didn’t fully evidence this. In contrast, the strongest applications provided specific examples of how matters related to EDI would be embedded into the proposed work and demonstrated that this was resourced.
- One of the Trust’s principles is to support capacity building in ageing -related research. Several applications provided information on work previously carried out on other projects. In some cases where the funds were clearly supporting the development of an early career researcher this was not referenced or expanded on. Applications that were successful clearly articulated the difference the award would make, for example funds to develop a research question as was part of a fellowship application which if successful would lead to career development for the applicant.
- In some proposals we noted that the costs included in the financial summary didn’t always align with the narrative of the application form. In general, the best financial summaries clearly showed the costs being requested and provided enough detail to demonstrate that the various activities mentioned in the application were appropriately resourced. It should be noted that funding for conference places where the work is yet to be carried out will not be considered. Additionally, as stated in the guidance, applications for open access fees are not eligible.
- In a few instances we noticed the use of the terms “elderly” and “subjects”. Whilst we didn’t factor this into our assessment, we thought it would be helpful to highlight this and signpost to some useful guidance on these terms. For example, the Centre for Ageing Better’s Age-friendly communication principles advocates for the use of “older person” or “older people” instead of “elderly”. In addition, the term “subject”, used to describe someone taking part in a research study, is now viewed as outdated – with the UK government aiming to replace the term “subject” with “participant” in the legislation that underpins the regulation of clinical trials in the UK.
We very much appreciate the time and effort put into developing an application and hope that this feedback is helpful to those who were unsuccessful in finding alternative sources of funding. If you are looking for new networks to assist you, do consider joining / reaching out to members of the DMT Academy. Also, do visit the UK Ageing Research Funders’ Forum news page to view other potential funding opportunities.