Winning funding case study

The HERE Project
In 2008 Ed Foster from the Learning Development Team was successful in obtaining funding following a joint call from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation and HEFCE. This page gives information on the successful bidding process undertaken by Ed along with tips on things to think about when considering bidding for funding.

Background
In 2007, the National Audit Office reported on widening participation in HE. The subsequent Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee report was, at times, highly critical of widening participation in the HE sector and the contribution, particularly around the lack of evidence for what helps student retention. At around this time the Paul Hamlyn Foundation were considering extending funding provision to the HE sector and contacted HEFCE. A joint public call followed which was also promoted by Action on Access a HEFCE-funded charitable trust.

The call from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation was issued via the Special Initiatives Grant entitled What Works?

The research proposal ultimately submitted to the Paul Hamlyn Foundation and HEFCE was targeted at what was considered (by the partners) to be a gap in current research in this area. The Funding bodies page has further general information on the types of funding awarded by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation.

Partners
Having been informed that the funders were encouraging joint bids, Ed looked for partners from within the University Alliance, of which NTU are a member. Having previously worked on the LearnHigher CETL with the University of Bournemouth and Bradford University contacts at these two institutions were approached and subsequently agreed to take part.

Pros and cons of collaborative bidding with partners
Ed summarised the main pros and cons of joint research bids and funding as the following:

• Different partners bring different strengths to the group. For example one partner may have more knowledge in the area of research evaluation than another.
• There is often more funding available for joint bids.
• Joint bids are more complex to manage. One of the biggest difficulties was the geographic distances between partners.Even with technological developments of live meetings, email etc the logistics of having partners so remote from each other (Bradford, Nottingham, Bournemouth) was found to be challenging. Though meetings and writing retreats did take place they did require arranging well in advance.
• As the lead partner, NTU was required to do more work, for example ethical clearance for the project was obtained at NTU and the other partners therefore used our ethical clearance. NTU did retain more of the funding as lead institution. However, as lead partner you have ultimate responsibility for deadlines and targets. There may be times where project work may is a lower priority to the other partners and this can be a source of tension.
• If funders are actively, or known to be, encouraging joint bids; a single institution bid, though more appealing, may be less likely to succeed.

Research proposal
At the time of the call there had been extensive research in HE around retention and why students leave university early but very little on why they consider leaving and then stay. So Ed framed the proposal around three questions:

1. Why students consider leaving University?
2. Why, having considered leaving do student chose to stay at university?
3. What can be done to help students stay?

The final project proposal was entitled HERE! Higher Education: Retention and Engagement.

Preparing and submitting the bid
The application process for this call was a two stage process:

1. You will need to declare an intention to bid and a summary of the proposal. If successful, applicants were invited to proceed to stage two.
2. Submission of a detailed project proposal. The detailed project proposal required a budgetary breakdown along with details of how research outcomes would be evaluated and outcomes evidenced.

Led by NTU the writing of the bid was a collaborative exercise between the three institutions, split around tasks and strengths. For example one partner undertook the literature survey and another looked into how their research would be evaluated. The writing process was mostly carried out via email, though the partners did meet to finalise the proposal prior to submission.

Tips for writing a proposal

• Look for a gap in the market and area where there isn't extensive research – an interesting research question with a fresh angle.
• Be clear about aims and outcomes sought from your research.

Tips for preparing bids

• Don't work in isolation, seek feedback on the bid proposal. Ed sought feedback from both academic colleagues and the NTU market research team.
• It's OK to ask questions of funding providers – not necessarily to consult on ideas but certainly to clarify or confirm details
• Consult with a Management Accountant and have them confirm the budgetary detail, prior to submission. In particular be aware of any stipulations, and take advice regarding full economic costing.
• If bidding as a lead partner in a bid be aware of the additional administrative time that leading a project will require.

Tips for managing projects

• There is a tendency to write bids that only cost in research or discipline experts, however this may be a mistake. The people conducting the research are not necessarily best placed to manage the work processes, meetings, ordering etc or deadlines. The HERE Project was always short of administrative and organisational support and really ought to have had made explicit the need for such support from the start.
• Similarly, one of the HERE Project's strengths was that it was born out of previous collaborative work and the key staff members had a good working relationship. However, a clearer discussion about roles and responsibilities would have strengthened the process. Whilst the project constantly sought to reach a consensus about matters, this was not always the most efficient or time effective way of working.

Funding award
The What Works? Special Initiatives Grant funded a total of seven projects.

HERE! Higher Education: Retention and Engagement was awarded £176,500, the distribution of which was split across the three years of the project. The project received slightly higher funding in the first year.

Reporting
The project was required to report to the joint Paul Hamlyn Foundation / HEFCE steering committee at the end of both Year One and Year Two, following which the further staged funding was released.

The final report will be submitted in July 2011 with a conference paper presented at an end of Project Conference in 2012.

Throughout the life cycle of the project progress is monitored by consultants employed by HEFCE to oversee all seven projects funded through the What Works? grant.

Each project receives at least two visits from the consultants and progress is reported back to the HEFCE/PHF steering committee.

Tips on reporting
Reporting on a project in itself can be problematical. Be clear who the research is aimed at/for when the proposal is being developed from the outset. This will avoid misunderstanding later when, for example either of the following may happen:

• partners may wish to write up research in an analytical research style whilst others may wish to approach this process from a practitioners point of view
• those overseeing the project might question the direction in which the project is heading.

Final thoughts
Whilst, at times, Ed found the process of bidding, proposing and managing the project was extremely challenging, it was also personally and professionally rewarding. The work has contributed to an under-researched area of retention and has therefore been rewarding to work on.

For any further information regarding the above bidding process, please contact Ed Foster.