Thank you to everybody who applied to the fourth round of the Academy Ignition Fund. The deadline for applications was on Friday 6th June 2025. We recently let applicants know whether they had been successful (with or without conditions) and, assuming that the conditional offers are converted to firm offers, the success rate for this round was 64%.
Applications were assessed on a range of criteria which were set out in the call guidelines and we’d like to offer our general feedback for those who were unsuccessful:
- In general, some applications were quite hard to read and included typographical errors and/or lacked clarity. Sometimes what the purpose to which the funds would be put 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.
- When reviewing applications, the panel considers the feasibility of the proposed work. Successful applications specified exactly what the funding would be used for, and who exactly would be carrying out that work, particularly when the proposal formed part of a larger piece of work. In particular, any other funding / in-kind contributions that forms part of the work should be stated in the relevant section of the application form. In a number of cases, it was also unclear who would be doing the proposed work and the amount of time they would be allocating towards it, because salary costs were not included in the funding request and there was no mention of people’s time in the ‘part-funding / in-kind contributions’ section.
- 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. Additionally, many applications confused the aims of the Academy with the aims of the wider Foundation, i.e. they talked solely about the Foundation’s research priorities.
- When considering the Foundation’s principles, the guidance notes in the application form explain that only the principles relevant to your application require addressing, The best applications did so whilst briefly mentioning why the other principles were not relevant. Applicants who attempted to address all principles, including those not directly relevant, often provided weak responses which lacked sufficient detail, even for the principles that were relevant.
- 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.
- For applications for secondments, or for project seed funding, it would have been helpful to include a timeline. This allows the panel to fully understand how the time will be spent and whether the funds requested will be sufficient. Where the awarding of a secondment would result in a deferment of existing work, an explanation of what arrangements would be put in place should be included to demonstrate the feasibility of the plan. Where applicable, evidence of approval for such a plan by a supervisor should be provided.
- 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 from 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 work, 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 the proposed work. 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. Another issue encountered in some applications was a stated commitment to using translation and/or interpreter services to improve diversity / inclusivity, but with a lack of clarity on how this would be resourced (e.g. not obviously allocating funding to support these activities). 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 Foundation’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 (for example, to support work to develop a research question for a fellowship application), this was not referenced or expanded on.
- In some proposals we noted that the costs included in the financial summary didn’t always align with the narrative of the application form or the final amount in the budget breakdown did not match the funding request. We strongly encourage applicants to double-check that all figures are consistent and accurately reflect the activities described. 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 as we have other sources of support for this.
- 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 replacing the term “subject” with “participant” in the legislation that underpins the regulation of clinical trials in the UK. Finally, we would also advocate for the use of the term “seldom-heard groups” instead of “hard-to-reach groups”.
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 reaching out to members of the Vivensa Academy. Also, do visit the UK Ageing Research Funders’ Forum news page to view other potential funding opportunities.