Thank you to everybody who submitted an application to the first round of our Joint Undergraduate Research Placement scheme with the British Geriatrics Society. Applications were assessed on a range of criteria which were set out in the call guidelines. We recently informed applicants of the outcome of their application, and the success rate of the call, which includes awards that were conditional, was 44%. The panel’s general feedback on proposals is outlined below:
- Given the scheme’s aim of building capacity within underserved locations / centres / disciplines / student demographics, it was pleasing to see a number of applications with a stated aim of recruiting students from underserved and/or widening participation backgrounds. However, in some cases there was a lack of concrete details around how this would be achieved. The strongest applications backed-up this stated desire with practical detail / examples regarding how they would attract and recruit students from underserved groups (e.g. advertising the placements through relevant student groups, including specific criteria within the student selection process etc.).
- Relatedly, where applications stated that students could be recruited externally (i.e. from other universities), there was often less detail on how this would be achieved.
- Most applications successfully highlighted the host centre / department / institute’s strategic commitment to ageing-related research. However, on some occasions this section of the application seemed to rely on highlighting a selection of individual ageing-related projects – sometimes led by / involving the lead applicant – and it was less clear to what extent this was underpinned by a wider strategic commitment. In addition, at times the panel queried the extent to which the proposed placement projects were genuinely ageing-related. Where the work / research being proposed could be of relevance to the wider population, it is important to evidence how the ‘gerontological lens’ will be applied (e.g. how older adults / their carers etc. will be involved and included in the work, how their voices have shaped the proposal etc.).
- A number of applications highlighted the host centre / department / institute’s track record in hosting other undergraduate research placements, which was generally felt to be a strength by the panel. In cases where the host centre / department / institute had not previously hosted undergraduate research placements specifically, it was helpful to understand the proposed team’s wider supervisory experience and/or track record in supporting similar initiatives (e.g. intercalated degree projects, Master’s research projects etc.). In all cases, the strongest answers were those that could evidence the success of previous initiatives – for example, the number of students supported through them, general feedback from previous students, evidence that previous initiatives had encouraged students to pursue a research-related career etc.
- In line with the flexible nature of the scheme, applications took a variety of approaches to outlining the proposed placement projects. However, where there was little / no detail provided on the projects (i.e. potential projects were yet to be identified), the panel found it challenging to assess the placements in terms of their feasibility and alignment to our strategic priorities. Conversely, in some cases the projects were felt to be overly pre-defined, leading to questions around how projects would be tailored to fit the strengths / development goals of the recruited students, and to what extent students would be able to have meaningful input into the project plans. Overall, the panel felt that the strongest proposals were those that highlighted a selection of example potential projects – with details provided on the rationale / process by which these had been identified – and could then outline the role(s) of the students within these projects and opportunities for them to shape / inform the final project plans.
- A range of supervisory approaches / models were proposed. However, in many cases the process by which supervisors had been / would be selected could have been more detailed (generally, this was outlined in less detail than the student selection process). On some occasions a relatively small supervisory team was proposed – where there was also a lack of detail on the supervisors’ other commitments, this raised concerns over the capacity of the team to deliver the supervision / mentorship plans outlined in the application. Relatedly, the panel commended a number of instances whereby the proposed supervisory model had been designed to build capacity within the proposed team. For example, partnering senior supervisors with more early career researcher (ECR) supervisors and/or bringing together supervisors from different disciplines to provide experience of multi-disciplinary supervision. These were viewed as creative ways to use the grant to build capacity more widely (i.e. not just with the recruited students themselves).
- Regarding patient, carer and public involvement and engagement (PPIE), the panel appreciated that, in some cases, it was not within the scope of the proposed projects for the students to carry out dedicated PPIE sessions / activities etc. – and indeed, where this was the case stating this explicitly was helpful. Nevertheless, a number of applications found ways to build PPIE into their wider plans for the placements – for example, including funds for a whole-cohort training session(s) on PPIE, linking each student with a PPIE partner etc. Such approaches were commended by the panel, and were generally felt to be more beneficial / tailored than, for example, highlighting general PPIE training that students might be able to engage with.
- In a few instances we noticed the use of the term “elderly” in applications. Whilst the panel didn’t factor this into their assessment, we thought it would be helpful to highlight that our age-friendly language and imagery guidance encourages the use of terms such as “older people” or “older adults” over “elderly”, which often has more negative connotations.
With this being the first round of this pilot scheme, we were pleased with the level of response to the call. 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 taking their work forward. If you are looking for new networks to assist you, do consider joining / reaching out to members of the Vivensa Academy. You may also be interested in the Academy Ignition Fund, which provides small pots of funding (up to £5k) to be used flexibly, for example to bring together different stakeholders / partners and develop ideas for future funding applications. Finally, do visit the UK Ageing Research Funders’ Forum news page to view other potential funding opportunities.
If you wish to stay updated on funding opportunities from the Vivensa Foundation, then you can join our mailing list by adding your details to the ‘Join our community’ section of our “Contact us” page. You can also follow us on LinkedIn or Bluesky.