Fundable research and success rates


alex-hulkes-150Alex Hulkes is Strategic Lead for Insights at the ESRC, and is responsible for developing our ability to evaluate and carry out data-informed analysis of ESRC investments, policy and operation.

Here he writes about the different types of success rate for research proposals. 

There’s a lot that can be learned from the data we have on research proposal outcomes. Attention tends to focus on the overall proposal success rate and the success rates of individual research organisations.

Our two most recent ESRC Insights analyses look at other types of success rate and try to understand why they are what they are.

Our first analysis, on success rate distributions (PDF), introduces not one but four success rates. Alongside the overall success rate, everyone has:

  • a fundability rate (the proportion of all proposals that is fundable)
  • a fundable rate (the proportion of all proposals that is judged fundable, but not funded)
  • and a conversion rate (the proportion of fundable proposals that is funded).

Each of these rates tells us something different.

The fundable rate is interesting as it’s the ‘bad luck’ rate. It looks for instances where an award could have been made but where the money wasn’t there to give out, and tells us how often this happens. Across research organisations it doesn’t look like anyone has a meaningfully high or low fundable rate. Though it may feel like it to some.

The fundability rate is different. Fundability rates vary by research organisation, and they vary meaningfully. The question is why. Although our accompanying analysis on fundability and success (PDF) often refers to the number of applications, and while it’s easy to draw charts that show that more applications lead to higher fundability rates, that’s not the true picture.

fundabilityTo show that this isn’t the case we’ve used some data from REF to help tease out what matters. It seems that the answer is ‘research quality’. All other things being equal, research organisations that have a track record of being able to produce higher quality outputs produce fundable proposals to ESRC more consistently.

And what doesn’t matter? Definitely not scale of activity, and probably not proposal volume. Well, maybe proposal volume matters a little bit, but it’s not clear. While proposals can be good or bad, and while (presumably) it is possible in the end to learn how to write a good proposal by writing more of them, simply submitting more proposals is an inefficient approach. If an organisation wants to increase its success rate, a focus on the research concept itself is by far the best bet.


To get in touch, please email alex.hulkes@esrc.ac.uk

Visit the ESRC website for more on our performance information data.

Finding the right chemistry for a good proposal

Alex Hulkes is Strategic Lead for Insights at the ESRC. Here he highlights new analysis which demonstrates what elements could make a successful proposal.

alex-hulkes-150

My last blog looked at demand management. This time I’m looking at the quality of proposals, as judged by our peer review processes, which are submitted to ESRC. Continue reading

The supply and demand of funding grants

Alex Hulkes is Strategic Lead for Insights at the ESRC. Here he highlights some of the key points of a recent analysis of ESRC’s demand management policy which was published today.

alex-hulkes-150

In November I wrote a blog which focused on grant success rates. While they’re an interesting topic in their own right, it’s worth remembering that they are derived from two underlying figures which are arguably more important: the supply of funding and the volume of demand for that supply. Continue reading