Thank you to everybody who submitted a nomination to our recent round of the Vivensa Academy Excellence Awards. This was the first year of the Team Achievement award and we were genuinely impressed by the quality, diversity and ambition of the teams nominated. The breadth of innovation, collaboration and impact made shortlisting particularly challenging, as many submissions demonstrated significant achievements and strong potential for future influence.
After careful consideration, we have now informed nominees whether they have been invited for an interview. Nominations were assessed against a range of criteria set out in the award guidelines.
Here we have collated some general feedback on key themes that emerged from nominations for this round that were not selected for the next stage:
- Many nominations highlighted innovative projects, novel methodologies, or emerging areas. However, several nominations lacked clarity about the specific achievement being celebrated. In some cases, nominations described long-standing programmes, portfolios of related projects, networks or services, rather than a clearly defined achievement accomplished for the first time within the last five years. Stronger nominations clearly articulated what was achieved, when it occurred, why it was distinctive, and what changed as a result, supported by evidence of impact.
- Relatedly, where teams or initiatives had been established for many years, it was not always clear which elements of the work fell within the last five years and how these represented a step-change or new achievement. The strongest nominations explicitly distinguished recent achievements from earlier foundational work and explained why recent developments merited recognition in their own right.
- Many nominations highlighted collaboration, but the nature of the team was not always clearly defined. Stronger nominations clearly identified the core team (by naming the people involved and not only their roles) responsible for the nominated achievement (distinct from wider networks or collaborations), explained how and why the team was formed and described how members worked together in practice.
- The panel valued clear articulation of the specific expertise each team member brought and how this diversity was pivotal to the success of the achievement. In some nominations, individuals, institutions or disciplines were listed but their contributions to the achievement were not well-described. Stronger nominations showed how multidisciplinary or cross-sector collaboration enabled outcomes that could not have been achieved by single individuals / entities alone.
- Many teams described promising or innovative work, but evidence of impact was sometimes limited, emerging or largely aspirational. The strongest nominations demonstrated tangible outcomes for older people, research, policy, practice or services, using appropriate evidence such as adoption, uptake, changes in practice, policy influence, reach or sustained benefit. Nominations were less strong where impact relied primarily on emerging / anticipated future change.
- Numerous teams showed commitment to supporting early-career colleagues, practitioners or community partners. Stronger nominations provided concrete examples of how capacity building was delivered and how the team fostered a positive, inclusive and supportive working culture.
- While the contributions of older adults to the achievement was mentioned across all nominations, it was often limited to early consultation or dissemination stages. The most effective nominations showed how older people meaningfully shaped the nominated achievement and the tangible difference their involvement made.
- Equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) was often implicit rather than explicitly demonstrated, descriptions of how EDI principles informed team formation, decision-making or methodology were sometimes limited and evidence of impact (beyond aspirations) was often lacking.
- Environmental considerations were addressed with varying depth. While many teams noted reduced travel or remote working, stronger nominations demonstrated a more systematic approach, such as embedding sustainability frameworks, assessing environmental impact or integrating environmental considerations into research design or delivery. Where constraints existed, stronger nominations acknowledged these and explained how teams worked within them.
We have also published the feedback for the Rising Star and Senior Leader nominations to the 2025/26 Vivensa Academy Excellence Awards. If you are interested, please feel free to read it here.
We appreciate the amount of time and effort that goes into making a nomination, and we hope this feedback is helpful to those who were unsuccessful on this occasion. The next round of the awards is due to open in early autumn 2026, so do look out for its announcement on LinkedIn, Bluesky and our “Apply for funding” page.