Funding for our research refused

[inappropriatelyemployed]

So annoyed After months of preparation and fine tuning, after short listing and answering very detailed questions about methodology, our application for funding for a unique research project on promoting children's rights in the SEN process has been refused.

Looking at the feedback, there was certainly a feeling of it not being a good time because poor LAs are in 'disarray' with the CFB. I translate that into - we are going to get ourselves into a political situation if we fund this.

So pissed off, I have dedicated lots of time to this and got together a top panel of completely fab people involved in the education world as well as the unreserved backing of a children's charity.

Does anyone ever want to hear our kids's voices?

Thanks. We didn't get the reviewers feedback until after the decision either. We just got sent some questions from the Trust which we were asked to comment on,

I agree that it is too late in terms of any change in decision on the funding etc and that there may well have been other priorities etc.

I think it may be important to raise the specifics of the issue though as other funders will want to know why we were refused.

The line we have is that there were 'too many unanswered questions'.

This is what is very annoying as the questions raised by reviewers were all answered very thoroughly in our later response. I suspect that the trustees were simply passed our answers though and given the technical nature of them! they were unlikely ever to be able to decide on it without additional input.

So had they said, there were other proposals which better met our priorities or we were unsure about timing in view of the CFB, I might have understood it better. But the reason given does not seem rational.

I suspect, given some of the comments of the reviewers, they were worried about placing themselves in the middle of a maelstrom with the CFB.

In terms of incorrect comments, one in particular suggested we had failed to reference other work on the topic so had downplayed the availability of other sources. Presumably to make the proposal look more unique. I think this is unacceptable and it is completely untrue. The sources this referee gives are not even relevant. Quite simply no one has undertaken empirical research into the SEN decision making process. No one.

This person made other worrying comments which suggested a lack of knowledge of SEN. I found this very concerning as this would certainly affect the views of. Trustees - all of whom are academics in their own right.

I have a phd myself and have written articles etc and I know you just don't say things like that unless you are very sure.

In terms of incorrect comments, one in particular suggested we had failed to reference other work on the topic so had downplayed the availability of other sources.

Well that usually tells you the identity of the reviewer - not that it helps. Actually, sometimes you can nominate reviewers so maybe it would.

I guess all you can do is that when you rewrite the proposal you make clearer how your work differs from whatever this study that the referee mentions is. I tried to play politics by referencing the other UK groups in my field just in case they were asked to referee the grant.

I suspect if you inform the grant awarding panel they will just think it is "sour grapes" because you were not awarded the money.

Do you have any pilot data to include. Any that you can include demonstrates the feasibility of the project you are suggesting. Sometimes I think they want you almost to have done the research before they give you the money.

I had more luck with projects that focused on a very specific issue - can you reduce the scope of your project?

Are you attached to a university or have a collaborator who is. Most have departments these days who can offer advice in grant writing and can advise on possible sources of funding. They can be a big help.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation?

Thanks one in eight. I completely see where you are coming from with the 'sour grapes' thing. I think we do need them to clarify their decision though.

I also think that perhaps we were naive not to see how 'political' this would be but one reviewer's comments read like they had come straight from the mouth of an LA SEN manager!

I can't say too much about who the project is with but it is attached to a significant charity with a research facility connected to a university

I think they just weren't the right funders. Lesson learnt.

Wet - thanks. The JR would be perfect but they only issue 'calls for proposals' and invite submissions to them rather than accept general applications for grants.