½¿É«µ¼º½

Introduction

The ½¿É«µ¼º½ Research Commissions aimed to identify and address issues of significance to the study and practice of education, with the potential to shape the discipline and its research communities. They explored how educational research could respond to the challenges and opportunities arising from the changing nature of education across the four nations.

The outcomes and recommendations of the Research Commissions were not formally endorsed by ½¿É«µ¼º½. The intention was to break new ground and raise the profile of under-researched areas within education.

Format

Each Commission determined its own approach and methodology at the application stage. We recognised that different formats suited different projects and welcomed diverse applications.

We expected tangible outcomes from each Commission, such as a seminar series or commissioned papers. Proposals were required to include an impact strategy to ensure their findings were shared and used within the wider community. Applicants were encouraged to think creatively about maximising impact.

Commissions were also expected to produce a short interim report outlining progress, followed by a final report with recommendations. While Commissions could make recommendations for ½¿É«µ¼º½ to build upon their work, the funding was intended to support further development without additional financial support from ½¿É«µ¼º½. It was the responsibility of each Commission to determine appropriate recommendations and follow-up actions.

Participation

The Commissions were designed to support the discipline by engaging practitioners, policymakers, and researchers in current debates. We encouraged collaboration with individuals from other disciplines, as well as participation from policymakers, practitioners, and ½¿É«µ¼º½ members. Proposals were expected to outline how different groups would be identified and involved.

We promoted the involvement of postgraduate students and early career researchers to help develop research capacity. International collaboration was also encouraged, given its potential to add value and increase impact.

½¿É«µ¼º½ was committed to improving equality, inclusion, and representation. We particularly welcomed applications from under-represented groups.

All lead applicants, including any named Principal Investigators, were required to be ½¿É«µ¼º½ members throughout the project. We expected the majority of each team to be ½¿É«µ¼º½ members for the duration of the Commission.

Funding

Applicants were required to demonstrate efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and value for money. Funding for each Commission was available up to £20,000. In addition, ½¿É«µ¼º½ provided in-kind support, including event organisation, promotion of the Commission’s work, and editing and publication of the final report or other outputs.

Successful applicants received an award letter, which acted as a contract between ½¿É«µ¼º½, the grant holder, and, where relevant, their higher education institution (HEI). The agreement required signatures from both the applicant and their HEI.

Payments were typically made in three instalments:

• 40% on signing the award letter

• 30% upon submission of the interim report

• 30% upon submission and acceptance of the final report

Payments were normally made against invoices from a host institution. While different institutions could submit invoices for separate instalments, we could not process multiple invoices per instalment. Alternatively, ½¿É«µ¼º½ could hold funds centrally and cover agreed project costs directly, subject to agreement at the proposal stage.

The project budget submitted at application formed the basis for funding.

Eligible Costs

Funds could be used for direct project expenses, including:

• Project planning and development

• Teaching or research buy-out

• Research assistance

• Consumables (datasets, photocopying, minor items used during the project)

• Interpreter and transcription costs

• Research website setup

• Software

• Costs of depositing digital material in accessible repositories

• Travel and expenses for speakers and participants

• Room and facility hire

• Attendance at ½¿É«µ¼º½ or related conferences

In addition, ½¿É«µ¼º½ provided:

• Event organisation (as specified in the application)

• Final report editing and design

• Dissemination and promotion to ½¿É«µ¼º½ members and wider networks

Ineligible Costs

Ineligible costs included:

• Institutional overheads

• Payment to the principal researcher in lieu of salary or for personal expenses

• Equipment (computers, cameras, telephones, recording equipment, etc.)

• Direct production costs (printing, binding, marketing, etc.)

• ½¿É«µ¼º½ membership fees

Applicants with special needs could consult ½¿É«µ¼º½ regarding possible exceptions.

Research Ethics

Host organisations were responsible for identifying and managing ethical issues related to their project. Approval to undertake research involving human participants, animals, sensitive data, or potential environmental impacts was required before such work began. Ethical guidelines, including ½¿É«µ¼º½’s own, were expected to be followed.

Branding and Publicity

Compliance with ½¿É«µ¼º½’s communications policy was a condition of funding. Recipients were required to:

• Publicise the funding

• Acknowledge ½¿É«µ¼º½â€™s support in all outputs (publications, presentations, stationery, etc.) using ½¿É«µ¼º½â€™s logo and visual identity

• Provide ½¿É«µ¼º½ with advance notice of press releases, media appearances, and relevant social media activity to enable coordinated promotion

Reports and other outcomes from the Commissions were expected to be published through ½¿É«µ¼º½ in the first instance.

ÌýEvents

All events associated with a Commission were to be organised in conjunction with ½¿É«µ¼º½, including managing registrations through the ½¿É«µ¼º½ website. Event plans were to be agreed at the application stage and complied with ½¿É«µ¼º½â€™s policies for similar activities.

Reporting

Commissions were required to notify ½¿É«µ¼º½ of any significant changes to their original proposal.

An interim report, due by 20 December 2023, was to include:

• A summary of progress

• Remaining planned activities

• Emerging conclusions or recommendations

Final reports were due by 30 April 2024. ½¿É«µ¼º½ worked with the lead applicant on the final report’s design and publication but reserved the right to publish in a format deemed appropriate.

Misconduct and Conflicts of Interest

Host organisations were expected to have procedures in place to promote good research practice and address unacceptable conduct. They were required to provide information on research integrity and ethics upon request.

Liabilities

½¿É«µ¼º½ accepted no responsibility for expenditure or liabilities beyond the approved grant and project period. Costs exceeding the agreed budget or incurred after the project end date were the responsibility of the host organisation.

½¿É«µ¼º½ reserved the right to inspect the host organisation’s financial records related to the project. Upon request, independently audited accounts verifying expenditure in line with ½¿É«µ¼º½â€™s conditions were required.

Links to other ½¿É«µ¼º½ work

Successful Commissions were encouraged to present their work at ½¿É«µ¼º½ Conferences, subject to the usual application and peer review processes. Conference attendance could be included in the project budget.

Participants were also encouraged to contribute to the ½¿É«µ¼º½ Blog (/blog) throughout the project, including introductory pieces and updates from Commission members.

Criteria for assessment

Proposals were assessed based on quality and deliverability, focusing on:

• Clear aims and objectives

• Relevance to ½¿É«µ¼º½â€™s priorities

• Innovation and contribution to knowledge

• Sound research design and methods

• Likely outputs, dissemination plans, and impact

• Value for money and potential for collaboration

Initial assessments were conducted by ½¿É«µ¼º½â€™s College of Reviewers, with final decisions made by ½¿É«µ¼º½ Council. ½¿É«µ¼º½ reserved the right not to fund a Commission if proposals did not meet the required standard.

Education and environmental sustainability

The most recent Research Commmission focused on the theme of education and environmental sustainability. The outcome of this call was our support for a project to co-create a manifesto for Education for Environmental Sustainability (EfES) in secondary education in the UK. ÌýThis has been a great success, with various outputs including ½¿É«µ¼º½ Blogs, a specially curated issue of Research Intelligence, podcasts, policy briefing, community guidance documents, and the final manifesto, which was launched at a ½¿É«µ¼º½ event with our record number of registrations for a non-Conference event.Ìý

Competing Discourses of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC): Tensions, Impacts and Democratic Alternatives across the UK’s four jurisdictions

The first ½¿É«µ¼º½ Research Commission wasÌýCompeting Discourses of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC): Tensions, Impacts and Democratic Alternatives across the UK’s four jurisdictions,Ìýled by Dr. Guy Roberts-Holmes (UCL, Institute of Education), Dr. Jan Georgeson (University of Plymouth) and Dr. Verity Campbell-Barr (University of Plymouth).