EPSRC has provided some feedback on the Impact Plan documents that have been submitted in support of grant applications to date. The material below comes direct from EPSRC.
General comments
- There is no evidence that people are refusing to prepare them.
- No evidence of Universities or Communities using ‘boiler plate’ text – i.e. the same text for each Impact Plan.
- First grants generally have a better standard impact plan than other proposals Also, things like Overseas Travel Grants, Visiting Fellowships and networks were generally better.
- There were a sizeable number of proposals where the plan was merely the summaries cut and pasted. The summaries are just that, short descriptions of the beneficiaries and potential impact, for the public domain. The plan needs to set out what the researchers are actually going to do and why.
- Plans need to be UP TO two pages. While some were appropriately one paragraph, others appeared to be expanded to fill the whole two pages without adding anything of consequence.
- Researchers can ask for the resources to carry out the plan – it didn’t seem that any of the proposals did this.
- There was a lack of thinking widely and imaginatively about the type of impact the research could have, and over what timescales. For instance, only a few projects made mention of the potential impact on the RA or student.
- For dissemination, applicants need to be specific about which journals and conferences would be appropriate to reach the potential beneficiaries and why. Many plans contained general statements about `the usual journals`.
- It wasn’t always clear for projects involving collaborators that they had been involved in developing the plan. Often there was a description of the problem but no good description of how the project/plan would address it and how the collaborators would help achieve impact.
Programme-specific comments
- Maths: suitably short, and focused on academic impact via dissemination BUT no expansion in the plans for dissemination e.g. comments like `the usual journals` need to explain which journals and why?
- Physical Sciences: generally filling the full 2 sides, and rather general. Could be shorter and pithier and be more specific about what is actually going to be done. Also need to expand on dissemination routes. Not addressing the long term potential impacts – tending to focus short-term.
- Engineering: generally good, with collaborator involvement. See comments above about ensuring collaborators built in to the plan.
- ICT: Similar comments to Physical Sciences. Should be well-placed to write an impact plan effectively but as yet are not making the most of the opportunity.
University perspectives
We looked at the impact plans clustered by university to see if there were any trends or lessons, either good or bad. There were no obvious trends. We will continue to monitor this.