Australian Development Research Awards

Feeback to applicants on shortlisting for the 2009 ADRA funding round

The 2009 funding round of the Australian Development Research Awards (ADRA) called for the submission of applications by 18 September 2009. AusAID received 217 applications in response to the following four themes:

Disability-inclusive Development
Economics
Gender
Performance-linked aid

All 217 applications were reviewed by the relevant thematic research selection committees consisting of senior AusAID staff, external academics and thematic specialists. A total of 24 applications were shortlisted for further consideration, with each of the short-listed applications subject to an external peer reviewing process.

The research selection committees will reconvene and make final determinations based on peer review findings, relevant internal AusAID information, and the research selection committees' own rankings.

AusAID was pleased to see applications from a wide range of research organisations and from a variety of countries, especially throughout the Asia Pacific region. Generally there was a strong field of competitive applications under most priority themes and the selection committees had a difficult task in determining their final short lists.

AusAID would encourage applicants for future ADRA funding rounds to read the guidelines carefully before submitting their applications. This will ensure that applications are not deemed ineligible on administrative grounds.

AusAID would like to thank all the organisations who submitted an application.

Specific feedback

Following is some specific feedback from each research selection committee on the quality of the applications received and the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful applications.

Disability-inclusive development
Economics
Gender
Performance-linked aid

For general enquiries about the Australian Development Research Awards contact research@ausaid.gov.au or fax +61 2 6206 4570.

Disability-inclusive Development

A total of 42 applications were received under the Disability-inclusive Development Theme, an increase of 24 from the previous year. Available funding from AusAID is $300,000 per year for up to three years.

Following an intensive short-listing process, AusAID accepted the Research Selection Committee’s recommendation that four applications be short-listed for further consideration and progress to external peer review.

While the committee noted that the majority of the proposals received addressed the ‘Increasing social and economic participation’ sub-theme, ideally it would have liked more applications addressing the other two sub-themes. There were only four applications for the ‘Economic costs of social exclusion’ sub-theme.

In its decision-making the committee emphasised the value of:

projects that had a direct impact on the rights of people with disability
a strong participatory focus, with people with disability involved in either carrying out the research or being project partners
joint proposals or partnerships that enable the transfer of skills from strong researchers to build capacity in-country.

Overall, the committee noted that the shortlisted applications conveyed a positive message in relation to people with a disability and shared many of the following strengths:

strong linkages between practitioners and NGOs which enabled good knowledge transfer
strong research methodology and relevant to the context
research which built on existing datasets
a good balance of quantitative and qualitative methods
projects based in AusAID priority countries
good use of international evidence in proposal development (such as WHO statistics).

Weaknesses noted by the committee included:

a lack of genuine consultation and involvement with people with disability and their representative organisations
a lack of reference to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the AusAID Disability Strategy
reliance on a strong medical/therapeutic methodology rather than a broader social model that integrated service delivery into the development model
the use of complex and relatively expensive methodologies in the proposals related to the Road Safety sub-theme
proposals that were too large and ambitious
tendency for proposals not to be directly connected with disability issues
tenuous links between the research being proposed and AusAID strategies and priorities
lack of direct involvement of in-country organisations in projects
a weak approach to capacity development, including weak partnerships between academics and in-country organisations to build capacity
research questions that were too oblique and lacking the necessary inputs
lack of innovative knowledge sharing opportunities with key stakeholders
a research focus in Australia that was not easily adaptable to other countries.

Economics

A total of 71 applications were received under the Economics Theme. Available funding from AusAID is $1,000,000 per year for up to three years.

Following an intensive short-listing process, AusAID accepted the Research Selection Committee’s recommendation that twelve applications be short-listed for further consideration and progress to external peer review.

The committee members noted the strong field of applications addressing microfinance issues in a range of developing countries and the need to maintain a balance with projects addressing macrofinance issues.

The following observations were noted:

the guidelines were clear in asking for the inclusion of economic analysis—however, a number of proposals did not include economic analysis and consequently were judged ineligible
while underlining that funding quality research is central to the ADRAs, the research must be linked explicitly to AusAID’s themes and priorities.

Overall, the committee noted that the applications that were shortlisted shared many of the following characteristics:

the link between the proposed research and the identified theme or sub-theme was clearly demonstrated
the research methodology included rigorous economic analysis
the budget was clear, detailed and offered value for money
the proposal was clearly relevant to AusAID policy priorities.

Weaknesses noted by the committee included:

there was no clearly demonstrated link between the research being proposed and the relevant theme or sub-theme
applicants neglected the requirement to include economic analysis
the budget was not sufficiently detailed and sometimes included a line for funding for salaried researchers (as opposed to funding teaching ‘buy out’ or additional research assistants)
there was a lack of detail and rigour regarding the research methodology
applications were not always explicitly linked to AusAID policy priorities.

Gender

A total of 91 applications were received under the Gender Theme, more than twice the number of applications received in 2008. Available funding from AusAID includes $300,000 per year for up to two years for the three sub-themes of gender based violence, supporting adolescent girls and identifying the results of addressing gender quality in development work, and $300,000 per year for up to three years for the access to financial services sub-theme.

Following an intensive short-listing process, AusAID accepted the Research Selection Committee’s recommendation that seven applications be short-listed for further consideration and progress to external peer review.

Overall, the committee considered that the quality of the applications varied widely, particularly for the ‘Access to financial services’ sub-theme.

In its decision-making the committee emphasised the value of:

projects which were highly relevant to the Gender Theme and AusAID priorities
joint proposals or partnerships that enabled the transfer of skills from researchers in order to build capacity in-country and to assist with knowledge transfer.

Overall, the committee noted that the applications that were shortlisted shared many of the following strengths:

projects were based in AusAID priority countries
applications were professionally presented, well written and easy to read
applications clearly addressed the relevant sub-theme and the selection criteria
strong linkages between practitioners and NGOs which enabled good knowledge transfer.

Weaknesses noted by the committee included:

the project methodology lacked clarity and used unnecessary jargon
the application did not address the sub-theme adequately. This was particularly evident in applications under the ‘Identifying the results of addressing gender equality in development work’ sub-theme
the research team lacked expertise in the gender area. This was particularly the case for applications made under the ‘Access to financial services’ sub-theme
the research proposal was not particularly innovative
in some cases the proposal was innovative but did not address gender issues
the choice of country seemed contrived
the project budget was dominated by the researcher salary component as opposed to teaching ‘buy out’.

Performance-linked Aid

A total of 13 applications were received under the Performance-linked Aid Theme. Available funding from AusAID is $300,000 per year for up to two years.

Following an intensive short-listing process, AusAID accepted the Research Selection Committee’s recommendation that one application be short-listed for further consideration and progress to external peer review.

Committee members noted that there was not a strong field of applications for the Performance-linked Aid theme.

Overall, the committee noted that the shortlisted application had the following characteristics:

the link between the proposed research and the identified theme or sub-theme was clearly demonstrated
the budget was clear, detailed and offered value for money
the proposal was clearly relevant to AusAID policy priorities.

Weaknesses noted by the committee included:

there was no clearly demonstrated link between the research being proposed and the relevant theme and sub-theme
the budget was not sufficiently detailed and sometimes included a line for funding for salaried researchers (as opposed to teaching ‘buy out’ or additional research assistants)
there was a lack of detail and rigour regarding the research methodology
applications were not always explicitly linked to AusAID policy priorities.

Last reviewed: 9 November, 2009