Whose knowledge is missing? Consumer, partner and stakeholder involvement in MRFF Proposals
Introduction
Once upon a time I sat in on a grant review panel. The assessors were discussing an amazing grant application, that would revolutionise the way that a surgical device was produced, making it smaller much smaller and cheaper. The team had an excellent track record, and the project was highly feasible. The assessors were enthusiastic about the project and gave it fundable initial scores… and then the panel clinician spoke up: ‘We don’t do the procedure that uses this device anymore – we now use a procedure that doesn’t require any device at all’.
Whoops!
Unsurprisingly, after this reveal the scores dropped to below the fundable level. Their proposal was superbly written and the team was well placed to do it, but it was the wrong project.
In grant applications, we often see researchers falling into this trap of not getting the right knowledge at the right time. So how do you do this?
The right information: Consumers and partners and stakeholders, oh my!
Many grant schemes expect consumer, partner, and/or stakeholder engagement throughout the research lifecycle. Yet the definition of these terms varies considerably, making it challenging to know if you have the right representation and input.
We propose a different approach: think about what knowledge is needed for your proposal, what it helps you to understand, and who has this knowledge (Table 1).
Knowledge type | What it helps us understand | Who typically has this knowledge |
Disciplinary knowledge | What is scientifically or technically possible | Researchers, academics, technical experts |
Lived experience knowledge | How people experience an issue | Consumers, patients, carers, service users, community members |
Cultural knowledge | Values, norms, meanings, practices and legitimacy | Indigenous knowledge holders, cultural leaders, migrant communities, faith communities, Elders, community organisations |
Community knowledge | Local priorities, histories, relationships and context | Local communities, community organisations, NGOs, advocacy groups, Indigenous knowledge holders |
Place-based knowledge | The influence of geography, environment and local conditions | Indigenous knowledge holders, local communities, land managers, practitioners |
Operational knowledge | How systems and organisations actually work | Industry partners, service providers, frontline practitioners, managers |
Implementation knowledge | What can realistically be adopted, sustained and scaled | Industry partners, practitioners, policymakers, program managers |
Policy and governance knowledge | How decisions are made and acted upon | Policymakers, regulators, sector bodies, governance organisations |
Historical and intergenerational knowledge | Long-term patterns, continuity and change | Indigenous knowledge holders, long-standing communities, experienced practitioners, historical institutions |
Using these lenses and thinking about the information you need to undertake your research will ensure your project is relevant and maximises the chance for impact.
The right time: engagement through the research lifecycle
The research lifecycle can be described in 4 phases:
Most research proposals will need engagement activities in each of these phases. Engagement at Conceptualisation contributes to making sure the research will address key problems facing the community. This informs project design, where further engagement can contribute to feasibility both technically (e.g. recruitment, questionnaire design) and conceptually (will this approach and solution address the key problem?).
Engagement during execution can provide insight and build research capacity, while engagement at translation can maximise impact by ensuring that your research findings are made available to the right people in the most appropriate way.
The level of engagement needed will vary both within and between projects. For example, during the Execution phase, a foundational, cell-based research project may have limited engagement compared to a person-centric clinical trial.
Demonstrating consumer, partner and stakeholder engagement in an MRFF application
So, you’ve ensured that you have examined your project through the appropriate lenses at the appropriate time – but how do you demonstrate this to your assessors through your MRFF application?
Your best bet is to align with the MRFF assessment criteria to guide your responses. Below, we’ve walked through an example of how this could be done.
Assessment Criterion 1: Project Impact
Example highest score descriptor: [The proposed research] comprehensively and convincingly considers of the needs, priorities, views and values of consumers (particularly those with lived experience and their carers), the community, health providers and/or other end users.
In this section, we see applicants focusing on their completed, past efforts to engage with the relevant consumers, partners and stakeholders at the Conceptualisation stage and Design phases of the program. After all, if you are submitting a grant application, then these phases would be largely completed!
Assessment Criterion 2: Project Methodology
Example highest score descriptor: [The proposed research] clearly and comprehensively articulates extensive involvement and contributions of consumers throughout the research journey
Here we see applicants focus on describing the way in which consumers, stakeholders and partners will be involved in the conduct of the research program, and the dissemination of the research findings. Here you could describe the composition, roles and responsibilities of partners and advisory committees, and explain how this involvement and governance will shape the execution of the project.
Similarly, you can outline how your engagement will ensure that your research findings are delivered to the people and organisations best placed to use them, in a format that suits them. Publishing an academic paper may be the best way to reach your academic colleagues, but will need to be adapted for government, policy, or consumer audiences to maximise impact.
Assessment Criterion 3: Capacity, capability and resources to deliver the project
Comments