We have already taken steps which will contribute to an overall reduction in the volume of applications.  We have stopped the Small Grants and Mid Career Fellowship schemes, replaced the First Grants and Postdoctoral Fellowships with a new Future Research Leaders Scheme and integrated the Large Grants and Centres competitions. Our suite of open studentship competitions will also be discontinued, with studentships being allocated through the new network of Doctoral Training Centres.

These steps will reduce volume but we cannot rely on scheme restructuring only. Further active demand management measures are required to complement reduction in application volume from the restructuring. The ESRC’s Delivery Plan 2011-2015 has set an ambitious target of halving the number of applications submitted through the Standard Grants scheme by 2014.

To reach this target it will be necessary to control the volume of applications more effectively, and in particular to reduce the number of proposals which are currently either below or on the cusp of minimum quality thresholds and are uncompetitive. Forty-three per cent of Standard Grants applications are office rejections or rated Beta or Alpha minus by referee or Grants Panel assessors. These applications are not considered by the full Grant Assessment Panels (GAPs).

Of those remaining Alpha-rated applications which are put before GAPs only a minority have a realistic prospect of funding. Taking data for the last four Standard Grants meetings, the cut-off for funding has been at the top end of the assessor grading of score A4. This accounts for around 31 per cent of the applications considered by the GAPs. The remaining 69 per cent of good quality Alpha-rated applications currently lie beyond the reach of ESRC to fund.

Possible options

The most effective way to manage demand is through a combination of self regulation by HEIs and by us introducing specific demand management measures. This will place greater responsibility and effort for initial quality assurance of applications with institutions, and will build upon existing good practice in many HEIs.  Greater self regulation has the potential to significantly reduce the volume of applications. However, it will probably not fully achieve the 50 per cent reduction that we need to deliver. To realise this reduction a combination of self regulation and the introduction of demand management measures is likely, which will help improve quality and focus on the best social science whilst reducing overall effort across the sector.

The Research Councils, where possible, will harmonise their demand management strategies. There is general agreement that HEIs should be encouraged to self regulate with a particular emphasis on structured peer review aimed at the submission of significantly fewer but better quality applications. This self regulation will be underpinned by the regular supply of performance data to institutions alongside better applicant guidance. 

Given the different contours of the various scientific communities of each Research Council, there may well be a need for different demand management tools. For example, the STFC serves a relatively small and well defined scientific community concentrated in a limited number of departments. By contrast the arts and humanities and social sciences support a large and diffuse research base, which accounts for over half of the total research active HE population. The ESRC receives applications dispersed over 114 HEIs. Applicant behaviour also varies across different scientific communities. The EPSRC has a relatively high proportion of applicants who regularly apply. By contrast the ESRC has comparatively few serial applicants. All these differences mean that the ESRC’s response to demand management may differ from that of sister Councils.

Given this context, the various options for managing demand which we have considered are:

• Researcher sanctions: This involves limiting the number of proposals from individual researchers who consistently fail to submit applications that reach an agreed quality threshold
• Institutional sanctions: This involves introducing sanctions for HEIs whose applications fail to meet a certain quality threshold
• Institutional quotas for ‘managed mode’ schemes: This involves the introduction  of institutional quotas for certain schemes (eg, Large Grants/Centres, Professorial Fellowships)
• Institutional quotas for all schemes: This involves responsive as well as managed mode schemes
• Charging for applications: Levying an agreed fee for institutions submitting applications, with the option that this levy is redeemable if the application meets a certain quality threshold.

• Success rates
• The need for a demand management strategy
• Initial evidence-gathering from the social science community