We’ve reached the next stage in the FLF Round 10 application process – the reviews are in!
If you are currently managing the emotions of seeing how your precious idea has been received by the outside world, this blog might help. It’s based on questions from previous applicants and draws on my experiences at FLF sift panels. It’s my personal advice – you should ALWAYS seek guidance from experts in your field as disciplines have their own cultures and the norm in one field might land very differently in another.
Before I jump into the Q&As, I want to emphasise how important it is to approach this as a RESPONSE. I push back on the word rebuttal in this context – whatever reviews include, they are an opinion provided by someone who has been invited to scrutinise your plans and is doing it as an act of collegiality. You may not agree with everything they say, but you need to respond to it rather than push it away. (Although worth reminding you that if the review is abusive, you should report it to the funder. Small teams collate reviews under huge time pressure, so these will slip through the net, but the funder has to be made aware of problematic behaviours and this won’t prejudice your application.)
1. Do the panel read the application? Or just the reviews and response?
Introducing members (IMs) read the whole proposal, other panel members (who aren’t introducing your proposal to the panel) may only focus on some aspects along with the reviews and response. But the key people (the IMs) will read it all. Depending on your subject area, panels might be really broad (e.g. often for Arts and Humanities although the more applications that come in from these areas, the more panels will be convened). Therefore, you may have panel members that are quite far away from your expertise, and they will get the disciplinary input from the reviews. This is why it’s so important you fully address any valid points as well as shortcomings in the reviews in the nicest possible way.
The IM will review this and decide whether the lack of comments are because these section of the proposal are fine or because the reviewer hasn’t engaged fully. It might be worth getting one of your supporters to look over any “missed” sections and check they don’t spot anything obvious. Reviewers with disciplinary expertise are likely to feel most confident in commenting about the Vision & Approach section which might dominate their comments. It is likely that IM2 and IM3 will pick up on other aspects such as your leadership journey and how you will support your team. So, reviews may focus on the research, but panels will cover everything.
3. The comments are very positive but scores are average. How does this play with the panel? Should I draw attention to the discrepancy?
This is very common and the panel ALWAYS looks at both and are well aware that one person’s 4 is another’s 2 or 6. Don’t obsess about this – focus on the comments because the panel is specifically instructed to look for consistency between these two aspects.
4. Should I highlight positive comments from reviewers?
Only if they help you to counter a negative from another reviewer. If you have space, you could have an opening line which summarises your thanks for the reviewers and notes the things that that you are pleased they’ve been positive about
5. What approach should I take with a review which is irrelevant and goes into detail about a different area.
First, take a breath and double check that they have. It’s very easy to mistake a dig into the detail of something that’s a valid query with irrelevant perspectives. Get someone to sense check with you and if it is out of scope, reiterate what area you are working in. Be positive about their interest, but firmly state what you’re doing and why it’s NOT what they are suggesting. In terms of the precise wording, talk to someone senior in your discipline, who knows what phrasing will be interpreted as firm rather than petulant. Again, remember that panels are made up of people who have a lot of experience and they will ignore irrelevant comments when they appear.
6. Can you introduce new information in the response?
- Things there wasn’t room for in the proposal
-
Things that have happened since submission
7. I’ve mentioned applying for additional funding but a reviewers says I can’t because I’m 100% committed to the FLF. How do I address this?
They are right that your time can’t be costed twice and that the FLF covers your whole salary in the early stages of the award. To respond be clear that you wouldn’t be costed on these other proposals and they would be supporting/advancing the core aims of your FLF. This creates sustainability for your work and your team.
8. Should I structure reviewer by reviewer or is there a better way?
This will depend on whether there is common ground between them. If not, then by reviewer might work, but generally it’s better to go with themes. For themed responses, referencing the reviewer and paragraph numbers (although not essential if you don’t have space) can be really helpful for helping the IMs to see how each concern has been addressed – ease of navigation will make IMs much happier!
Check with the partner – if they are happy to make the contribution agreed with the amount that was costed then your response can emphasise their commitment to your work as reflected by this “co-funding”. But be careful as they might want more money and didn’t ask for it – this would have to be found within your budget. (But if this does need to happen, moving money within the permissible areas of your budget is normal so you might also comment that if the work they are involved in grew that resources would be found through budget adaptations.)
10. All reviewers have made comments are about a lack of detail which is because of the constraints of the form, so I feel like I’m repeating myself.
The structure of the form may have been a difficult fit for you, but the response is additional space and you should take advantage of it. Don’t repeat again and again though – put a general comment at the top about welcoming the opportunity to go into more detail on specific points and save that precious space for this extra information.
11. My scores are 4545 and people have said this means I’ve got no chance of progressing. Are they right?
As noted above, it’s also about the comments. (Also, these aren’t bad scores!) Those scores are subjective so don’t worry and approach the response with determination to point out why your research is outstanding and so are you. It would be great to have 6666 but that doesn’t mean you’ll get through – the sift panel will weigh up the evidence in the proposal, the reviews and your response. Additionally, if you get one low outlier, that won’t determine your progression unless they make compelling points that the panel agree with. So make sure you address everything raised and explain clearly why you are disregarding anything that you feel is unfair or doesn’t apply.
You can, but you could talk about what the best case scenario might be. Use this as a chance to be positive and ambitious about where it might lead and what you’re doing to safeguard this fantastic possibility.
13. There’s a concern about how generic the support is for training and development from the host rather than being tailored to my field. How do I address this?
Training programmes will also be generic to some extent, but there’s a lot of additional personalised things you can mention. Mentoring, developing skills, visits or secondments are going to be more closely tailored to your needs and that the coaching and mentoring for the FLFDN will help you to identify what you need as your project progresses. Reiterate that your host school are committed to providing this as it becomes clear what you’ll need – perhaps mention regular reviews so they can respond to emerging needs. Take this seriously – it’s a PERSONAL award with an emphasis on your leadership so your host should be thinking about you as an individual.
14. Can I leave some comments unaddressed?
No, I have seen applications fail to progress because of this. You must acknowledge even if it is to say “this isn’t relevant because XYZ”.
15. I don’t think I need all the available space for my response – what else should I add to bring it up to the maximum allowed? Or should I just write a short response?
16. My reviews reflect a tension in my field with different “camps”. How do I challenge a reviewer who holds a belief about my field that I don’t share?
Point out that these factions exist (some of the panel may already be aware) and if possible show evidence of the tensions/disagreement in terms of opposing views. Talk about why you are approaching the work in the way you are and why the belief mentioned isn’t held by you. Is it possible to connect with this other camp through your work? Remain neutral though – you have no idea whether one of these camps may be on your panel!
17. Can I respond to one reviewer with a comment from another?
Yes – this is common. But always reinforce this with your own evidence.
18. The reviewers seems not to have had access to part of the application as they say something is missing that should be there. How do I respond to this?
It’s possible that they’ve missed something so just state the facts – point out where the information is and hopefully you’ve provided what they’ve asked for. Sometimes the systems which present this information to people aren’t easy to navigate so resist the urge to make a negative comment. Just summarise what is in the application. As always, check that you haven’t made assumptions that something they can’t find is there – it’s possible they aren’t satisfied with what you’ve included and you risk disregarding a query.
