Grants Scheme

In the summer of 1999, the SLSA Grants Scheme was announced in the Socio-Legal Newsletter. From the start, it was a great success and has continued to attract applications from across the breadth of socio-legal studies from both junior and senior academics. Originally, amounting to £5000 per year, the fund was increased to £8000 in 2004 and in May 2010 the SLSA Executive Committee agreed to increase the annual pot to £10,000. The scheme's aim is to support work for which other funding sources would not be appropriate and to encourage socio-legal research initiatives in a practical way.

Applications

Applications are now invited for the scheme for the year 2012–2013.

Applications to the scheme are considered only from those who are fully paid-up members (or registered as free student members) of the Socio-Legal Studies Association, wherever they live, by 31 October in the year of the application.

Applications must be made using the Application Package, available here. The Application Package is subject to change.

Understanding the Research Grants Scheme: advice about your application from former chair of the Grants Sub-committee, Dermot Feenan

How to apply

Subject to the section above, SLSA members interested in applying for a grant are reminded that the deadline is 31 October each year. Individual awards are up to a maximum of £2000. The Research Grants Committee takes the following elements into consideration when judging applications:

  • clarity of the aim(s) and objective(s) of the research; originality, innovativeness and importance of the research; methodology (including coherence with aim(s) and objective(s), practicability and, if applicable ethical considerations); budget; and potential impact;
  • funding will not normally be provided for conference attendance or to subsidise postgraduate course fees;
  • funding will not be provided via this scheme for one-day conferences or for seminar series;
  • feedback will be given to unsuccessful applicants;
  • no member will receive more than one grant per year;
  • Executive Committee members are not eligible for the scheme.

Decisions for each round of grants are made no later than 31 January each year.

You must use the prescribed forms for your grant application and you are advised to look at the titles, reports and summaries from past grantholders to help you decide whether your project is appropriate for a grant.

If you have any queries about this scheme, please contact the Chair of the Research Grants Committee.

top

Understanding the Research Grants Scheme

Dermot Feenan, chair of the Research Grants Committee, 2010–2012, reports on the scheme, including how the committee works, and offers advice on enhancing the prospects of success for an application. (This article was first published in the Socio-Legal Newsletter, spring 2012: SLN 66:4–5)

The Research Grants Scheme funds socio-legal research projects in annual competitive application from members. Projects up to £2000 are eligible. In the last two years the number of eligible applications averaged 22 annually.

Socio-legal research

The scheme funds socio-legal, not simply legal, research, but there is no collective or immutable definition of ‘socio-legal’. Empirical research is eligible. Most of the successful applications are well-justified with reference to theoretical issues. Other research is also covered, but the nature of the scheme limits funding to certain eligible costs – for example, accessing documentary materials.

Our procedure 

The deadline for applications is 31 October each year. We usually advertise the scheme by way of e-bulletin to members and in the Socio-Legal Newsletter. In the last few years we have clarified our criteria, tightened the process of decision-making, and improved the format for applications. But there is always room for improvement, upon which we would be pleased to hear any view.

Details of the scheme, including a bespoke Application Package, are available on our website. A sub-committee of the Executive Committee assesses the applications. Applicants are notified by the end of January each year.

The sub-committee assesses each application according to published criteria, which are repeated as headings in the Application Package. We rate each of these broad criteria on a scale of 1 to 5, as follows: 1=weak, 2=fair, 3=sound, 4=strong, 5=outstanding.

Each member of the sub-committee (there are generally four to five) scores each application independently of the other members. Scores are then collated to calculate average scores for each applicant, which allows a preliminary ranking of candidates. If there is a compelling reason for seeking references, such as a tie-break, we may request them. The committee then discusses the top-ranked applications, with reference to our budget and taking into consideration any further views amongst us on the respective strengths of the applications before agreeing a final ranking.

The committee then recommends to the Executive Committee at its January meeting those final ranked applications which it believes most meritorious for funding. Only top-quality applications will be funded. This may mean that not all the money allocated in one year is spent. In 2011–2012 the success rate among eligible applications was 18 per cent.

Aims and objectives

Applicants are asked to identify aim(s) and objective(s) of the research. The best applications tend to be brief, clear and precise in these respects. They will usually have one aim and a few objectives. There is a limit to how far a small grant can take you. Will aims and objectives be realistic? Avoid confusing language, e.g. in the same section saying: ‘main purposes x & y’ and ‘principal aim z’. Delimit, if necessary, temporal, spatial and other parameters. Aims and objectives should be congruent with the title of the project and the methodology. High-scoring applications tend also to neatly embed the aims and objectives into a précis of relevant issues in the literature.

Original, innovative and important

Applicants are asked to describe the extent to which the research is original, innovative and important (including reference to the existing literature). It is not enough to state that it is ‘socio-legal’. Justify your research question(s). Why this research? What’s its novelty and distinctiveness? This invariably requires thorough knowledge of salient literature. The best applications show a selective and nuanced knowledge of the key work (and usually cite name, title and year).

Methods

We ask applicants to describe their methodology, which should be coherent with the aim(s) and objective(s), practicable and, if applicable, include ethical considerations. If the application relates to a research visit, we also ask for a schedule of arrangements, interviews and personnel.

An explicit justification for the choice of method may help. If, for example, a face-to-face interview is chosen, why is this indicated rather than, say, a telephone interview or a questionnaire? High-scoring applications where interviews are proposed tend to specify the issues to be explored in interview.

Ethics

Stating something like: ‘institutional ethics approval will be sought’ is less helpful than showing whether you have considered specific ethical issues. This consideration need not be complex in the application, but could at least identify key issues. Study of the SLSA Statement of Principles of Ethical Research Practice may help. Obtaining ethics approval can be time-consuming and complex, so a conscious factoring of this into the proposed timescale will help.

Budget

We ask that applicants set out their budget. This should be precise. If the research will involve, for example, various modes of travel, accommodation, transcription of interviews, and subsistence, set out costs fully and accurately. Reasonable assessment of specific future costs is acceptable. See the example below for a fictional research trip from London to Glasgow for three days of interviews at three government agencies:

transcription of interviews: 10 interviews x 1.5 hours at 75p/minute = £675 (cost based on estimate from Acme Transcribers Ltd);

  • 1 standard return train fare London–Glasgow = £70;
  • 2 nights’ accommodation in Glasgow: £90/night x 2 = £180;
  • public transport to and from rail stations @ £8/fare x 4 = £32;
  • 3 days’ subsistence: £30 x 3 = £90;
  • public transport in Glasgow to and from interviews @ £5/fare x 6 = £30.
    Total: £1077

The committee has no preferred budgetary scale. We have recently funded projects costed from several hundred pounds to the maximum allowable. In 2011–2012, the average sum sought in successful applications was approximately £1500.

The SLSA is concerned in the current economic situation to ensure value for money. The budget should reflect this. For instance, could five 20-minute largely fact-finding interviews with officials in Hawaii be better conducted by email, phone or video-conferencing? Or, for example, is a stay of two nights overseas to conduct three interviews and to do fieldwork possible rather than three nights?

It’s best if the application stands alone for a discrete project, and is not contingent on funding from another application. However, we are also keen to support projects if they will augment complementary research, including enhancement of the prospects of securing funding for additional research. If so, make clear that relationship and specify the likely sources of funding.

Impact

We also ask for an explanation of potential impact from the research. This need not be policy impact. We ask applicants to include details of any dissemination plans and/or the enhancement of the prospect of obtaining future research grants from other grant-making bodies.

Vague or imprecise plans, e.g. ‘the research may lead to a series of papers and might ultimately inform a book’, are less helpful than specific plans: an article, monograph, edited collection, chapter, working paper, conference presentation etc. Better still if you provide full details, e.g. ‘completion of an article for submission by [year] to Law and Society Review; completion of a chapter in a book [title] under contract with [publisher, due for publication (year)] and presentation of a paper at the SLSA annual conference [year]’. These are perhaps now standard modes of dissemination, so alternative and innovative pathways to impact – such as grassroots impact and new media – are also welcome. But, be realistic. ‘At least three articles’ may be too ambitious.

General

It should go without saying that correct presentation is important. Errors in grammar or spelling may undermine confidence in, and the coherence of, the application. If necessary, have it spellchecked and/or proof-read by a friend or colleague.

Study past successes

We have funded some excellent applications – well-designed, theoretically informed, methodologically solid and innovative – which are often also modestly costed. These are worth checking. Each year the Socio-Legal Newsletter lists awards and publishes reports. A notable recent example is Professor Richard Collier’s survey of fathers, lawyers and the work–life balance (SLN 65:5). We do also provide feedback to unsuccessful applicants who are not precluded from re-applying in future.

Note: the criteria for the scheme are subject to amendment from year to year with a view to improving the clarity and transparency of our procedure. Always use the current criteria.

top