rebuilding macroeconomics researchWe offer a general research call once a year for research projects which do not fit within any of our existing hubs. All research proposal funding applications must go through our two-stage peer-reviewed application process. We request a preliminary stage 1 outline of the project using a short form below. We aim to respond to submissions within 14 days of the end of the application deadline. This will be either a rejection, a suggestion to modify or invitation to stage 2. We are happy to be contacted about possible research proposals.

Applications deemed promising will be invited to submit a stage 2 proposal using a longer form. Those applicants invited to do so will need to submit their longer proposal within two months.

Stage 1 Outline

You will need to provide the following information.

  1. Proposed Title
  2. Theme
  3. Names of any other team members
  4. What macroeconomic question are you answering? (100 words maximum)
  5. Describe the method you intend to use (200 words maximum)
  6. Why would your proposal be policy useful? (200 words maximum)
  7. Why do you consider your proposal to be new and/or inter-disciplinary?

Please complete the application in one sitting and the form cannot be saved when half completed.

Stage 2 Outline

  • All stage 2 proposals will be submitted using a standard format including a “case for support” and “justification of resources”. We expect all pilot projects to commit to an impact and dissemination plan agreed with the Management Team.
  • Three reviewers will be required for stage 2 projects – one with an economics research background, one with a background in policy or civil society and one with a non-economics research background.
  • Reviewers for General Research Calls will be selected by members of the Management Team
  • Reviews most often will be short (1 page).
  • Reviewers will be instructed to weigh most heavily the degree to which a proposal might help to test radically new approaches and methodologies to the question considered, rather than favouring already established or safe approaches or obsessing over small shortcomings.
  • Reviewers will be asked to focus on:
    • (i) the extent to which the proposed work, if successful, addresses a substantive ‘real world’ macroeconomic concern;
    • (ii) the strengths and weaknesses of methodology and implementation.
  • In selecting which projects to fund, we will not sum review scores. Where reviews diverge, we will be inclined towards the more positive reviews, if reasons are clear and if there seems to be a potential policy pay-off.
  • Where reviewers identify a good idea but weaknesses in methodology or implementation, the Management Team may create a dialogue with an applicant to adjust details and levels of funding, as appropriate.
  • Final decisions as to which projects to fund will be made by the Principal Investigator, after consultation with the Management Team and after advice from Hub leadership and reviewers, as appropriate.
  • The Principal Investigator, members of the Management Team and Research Hub Leaders can all apply for research funding through the same process. They will recuse themselves from all stages of decision making. A member of the Advisory Group will take-part in the project selection process.
  • Minutes will be kept of all decision-making at stage 1 and 2 of the application process and made available to the Advisory Group as a standard part of reporting. Minutes will be explicit about any potential conflicts of interest and how they have been handled.

We are no longer accepting research proposals for the 2017 year. Subscribe to our newsletter for information regarding the next round of funding applications.

TwitterFacebookLinkedIn